The generation of the ignorant

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The generation of the ignorant

I'm not shocked. I meet young adults today that are absolutely brain dead to things like what is the capital of the United States, how many continents or oceans there are, to name a few common knowledge questions for educated people.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yet they are still a lot

 Yet they are still a lot smarter than the last three generations. This "crisis" has been on TV since the invention of late night TV shows doing man on the street interviews. For  the most part, people are ignorant of history, and why not? It is huge. I listen to history podcasts 3-4 hours per day and read a history book at least once a month and there are still things I am surprised when I learn about them and am completely clueless about. People have always and will always be ignorant about a lot of things. The totality of human knowledge is too huge.

The question is whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance when they need to. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, today's 20 somethings are far better at that.

And apparently 100% of news journalists don't realize that when an organization with a clear bias reports a poll, you should analyze how the data was collected before drawing conclusions or even knowing if you can draw any conclusion.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think

there's a difference of "knowledge base". I was taught in school to have an education and how that relates to having a job to make money, but the emphasis was on learning first. Today it looks to me morely based on economics before education, or, education to have a job to make money and be economically viable. In my day there was no economical viability in sight. We were told/taught that we would have a to get a job---with little or no emphasis on job. We just knew from observing life aroud us that --we would have to get a job. No one of us kids gave a hoot- growing up was an assumption. Being childish was not considered being grown up. Obligation was taught at home and the schools answered to the parents, not the other way around.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Yet

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yet they are still a lot smarter than the last three generations. This "crisis" has been on TV since the invention of late night TV shows doing man on the street interviews. For  the most part, people are ignorant of history, and why not? It is huge. I listen to history podcasts 3-4 hours per day and read a history book at least once a month and there are still things I am surprised when I learn about them and am completely clueless about. People have always and will always be ignorant about a lot of things. The totality of human knowledge is too huge.

The question is whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance when they need to. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, today's 20 somethings are far better at that.

And apparently 100% of news journalists don't realize that when an organization with a clear bias reports a poll, you should analyze how the data was collected before drawing conclusions or even knowing if you can draw any conclusion.

yeah I agree we all can't know every thing but we are talking fucking judy judy. if you watch her show you must know she isn't on the supreme court.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yet they are still a lot smarter than the last three generations. This "crisis" has been on TV since the invention of late night TV shows doing man on the street interviews. For  the most part, people are ignorant of history, and why not? It is huge. I listen to history podcasts 3-4 hours per day and read a history book at least once a month and there are still things I am surprised when I learn about them and am completely clueless about. People have always and will always be ignorant about a lot of things. The totality of human knowledge is too huge.

The question is whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance when they need to. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, today's 20 somethings are far better at that.

And apparently 100% of news journalists don't realize that when an organization with a clear bias reports a poll, you should analyze how the data was collected before drawing conclusions or even knowing if you can draw any conclusion.

yeah I agree we all can't know every thing but we are talking fucking judy judy. if you watch her show you must know she isn't on the supreme court.

 

But the question didn't say "Is Judge Judy a Supreme Court Justice?" It listed her full name without reference to the TV show. They probably couldn't identify "Judith Sheindlin" as Judge Judy, I couldn't without Google. You would have gotten the same result with any random whiteish name thrown in there. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  Yet

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yet they are still a lot smarter than the last three generations. This "crisis" has been on TV since the invention of late night TV shows doing man on the street interviews. For  the most part, people are ignorant of history, and why not? It is huge. I listen to history podcasts 3-4 hours per day and read a history book at least once a month and there are still things I am surprised when I learn about them and am completely clueless about. People have always and will always be ignorant about a lot of things. The totality of human knowledge is too huge.

The question is whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance when they need to. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, today's 20 somethings are far better at that.

And apparently 100% of news journalists don't realize that when an organization with a clear bias reports a poll, you should analyze how the data was collected before drawing conclusions or even knowing if you can draw any conclusion.

I get that very few people have a huge CPU of a brain that can hold and retain tons of information, but damn all the time you guys rail against me for not having a "deep" knowledge of details of religion, which has a long history, even when I post links to the origins, you are a fucking hypocrite. Yes it is huge, and just like you don't have to build a car from scratch, most people do have a general idea of what "combustion engine" means. Not everyone has to be a CEO or a neurosergon, and not everyone even has to move up the economic scale, there will always be a big enough ratio to have enough people who will do those things. But a better educated society is a more stable society. You value cutting the investments that would foster those things because you stupidly think if you just keep more of your money it will trickle down to those with less. The best investment and the best charity those with more can give, is DIRECT investment in more pay and livable wages ON TOP of government investment in education, and infistructure and mental heath care and health care in general. What we have now is trickle up economics. And that is unfortunately going global. 

https://thafcc.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/the-worlds-richest-62-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-poorest-3-5-billion/

And the worst part is you stupidly think I hate all wealth when I am saying there are far too many at the top in the global market who have way more than they need whom are too jaded to understand that and are simply involved in combat between the top to get more not understanding the middle and bottom it affects.

 

 

 

"whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance". No sorry, it isn't just enough to call someone lazy and place blame on them. If the conditions are not there economically and everyone is focused on mind rot entertainment it doesn't matter how smart they may be, there has to be an environment that fosters that want of knowledge. But we have way too much "reality TV" and psudo crap like "finding Bigfoot" and crap like Maury Povich and Dr Phil and not enough Cosmos. 

 

 

 

I want an educated society and stable society, so if we both agree on that then the only problem is how we go about getting there. I am sorry, but if the way you wanted it to work was working, nobody would be complaining. We did deregulation, we did don't tax the rich for 30 years and the pay gap has exploded and keeps growing today.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 And I don't mind

 And I don't mind technology replacing humans, but the more you do that, the income lost in the manual labor has to be compensated somehow. We are way beyond globaly now of competition being soly about big business competing, it's done that and it will continue to do that. But it has to be forward looking, not just about profit, but forward looking in improving the human condition. Far too much of the global market is about casino gambling and a chase for the buck. No, not all, but far too much.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yet they are still a lot smarter than the last three generations. This "crisis" has been on TV since the invention of late night TV shows doing man on the street interviews. For  the most part, people are ignorant of history, and why not? It is huge. I listen to history podcasts 3-4 hours per day and read a history book at least once a month and there are still things I am surprised when I learn about them and am completely clueless about. People have always and will always be ignorant about a lot of things. The totality of human knowledge is too huge.

The question is whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance when they need to. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, today's 20 somethings are far better at that.

And apparently 100% of news journalists don't realize that when an organization with a clear bias reports a poll, you should analyze how the data was collected before drawing conclusions or even knowing if you can draw any conclusion.

I get that very few people have a huge CPU of a brain that can hold and retain tons of information, but damn all the time you guys rail against me for not having a "deep" knowledge of details of religion, which has a long history, even when I post links to the origins, you are a fucking hypocrite. Yes it is huge, and just like you don't have to build a car from scratch, most people do have a general idea of what "combustion engine" means. Not everyone has to be a CEO or a neurosergon, and not everyone even has to move up the economic scale, there will always be a big enough ratio to have enough people who will do those things. But a better educated society is a more stable society. You value cutting the investments that would foster those things because you stupidly think if you just keep more of your money it will trickle down to those with less. The best investment and the best charity those with more can give, is DIRECT investment in more pay and livable wages ON TOP of government investment in education, and infistructure and mental heath care and health care in general. What we have now is trickle up economics. And that is unfortunately going global. 

https://thafcc.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/the-worlds-richest-62-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-poorest-3-5-billion/ And the worst part is you stupidly think I hate all wealth when I am saying there are far too many at the top in the global market who have way more than they need whom are too jaded to understand that and are simply involved in combat between the top to get more not understanding the middle and bottom it affects.

 

 

 

"whether a person is able and willing to correct an ignorance". No sorry, it isn't just enough to call someone lazy and place blame on them. If the conditions are not there economically and everyone is focused on mind rot entertainment it doesn't matter how smart they may be, there has to be an environment that fosters that want of knowledge. But we have way too much "reality TV" and psudo crap like "finding Bigfoot" and crap like Maury Povich and Dr Phil and not enough Cosmos. 

 

 

 

I want an educated society and stable society, so if we both agree on that then the only problem is how we go about getting there. I am sorry, but if the way you wanted it to work was working, nobody would be complaining. We did deregulation, we did don't tax the rich for 30 years and the pay gap has exploded and keeps growing today.

 

No one here has ever criticized your ignorance. We have criticized your complete unwillingness to acknowledge it after it has been pointed out and your persistence with maintaining the same argument after it has been completely destroyed with objective facts. Ignorance can always be forgiven. Willful ignorance cannot, and you are one of the most willfully ignorant assholes I've ever come across. You readily spout off about things you know nothing about and never bother to research it, while criticizing those who have researched it and do have knowledge in the field. Faster, iwbiek and digital all have radically different views on a myriad of issues, but through our discussions here, all of us have modified our views when we encountered our ignorance and fixed it. You have spouted the same cut and paste shit for a decade, so either you knew everything there was to know, or you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No one

Beyond Saving wrote:
No one here has ever criticized your ignorance. We have criticized your complete unwillingness to acknowledge it after it has been pointed out and your persistence with maintaining the same argument after it has been completely destroyed with objective facts. Ignorance can always be forgiven. Willful ignorance cannot, and you are one of the most willfully ignorant assholes I've ever come across. You readily spout off about things you know nothing about and never bother to research it, while criticizing those who have researched it and do have knowledge in the field. Faster, iwbiek and digital all have radically different views on a myriad of issues, but through our discussions here, all of us have modified our views when we encountered our ignorance and fixed it. You have spouted the same cut and paste shit for a decade, so either you knew everything there was to know, or you are a willfully ignorant asshole.




QFT

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:But the

Beyond Saving wrote:

But the question didn't say "Is Judge Judy a Supreme Court Justice?" It listed her full name without reference to the TV show. They probably couldn't identify "Judith Sheindlin" as Judge Judy, I couldn't without Google. You would have gotten the same result with any random whiteish name thrown in there. 

Well as a person who knew the show I knew her name. I also knew, with out Googling it, the names of the justices. I'll admit that I only became familar with them over the last few years with serious court cases coming before the highest court in the land. So if you would have asked me ten years ago I might have only gotten five of them. Still, I knew Judy's name because I watched the show with my aging dad and I wanted to know more about her and the show so I researched it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
No one here has ever criticized your ignorance. We have criticized your complete unwillingness to acknowledge it after it has been pointed out and your persistence with maintaining the same argument after it has been completely destroyed with objective facts. Ignorance can always be forgiven. Willful ignorance cannot, and you are one of the most willfully ignorant assholes I've ever come across. You readily spout off about things you know nothing about and never bother to research it, while criticizing those who have researched it and do have knowledge in the field. Faster, iwbiek and digital all have radically different views on a myriad of issues, but through our discussions here, all of us have modified our views when we encountered our ignorance and fixed it. You have spouted the same cut and paste shit for a decade, so either you knew everything there was to know, or you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

 


QFT

I'll never get over the use of QFT in a response, but I know you are saying Quoted From Truth. I guess it is important to know the context of the discussion and who is saying what to whom. For example, if you posted the same reply to Brian then I would know it was Quit Fucking Talking.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
LMFAO Is there any

LMFAO

Is there any particular reason the average American should know who's on the bench? I would guess it's irrelevant to anyone who isn't a judge, lawyer, politician, or DA. I don't know the names of anyone sitting on the bench in Canada. Not even the backwards idiot who got himself in trouble recently for suggesting a victim of sexual abuse was responsible for the abuse. It may be a high profile position, but the supreme court doesn't engage with the public at all. The average person will never have any interaction with it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:LMFAO Is there

Vastet wrote:
LMFAO Is there any particular reason the average American should know who's on the bench? I would guess it's irrelevant to anyone who isn't a judge, lawyer, politician, or DA. I don't know the names of anyone sitting on the bench in Canada. Not even the backwards idiot who got himself in trouble recently for suggesting a victim of sexual abuse was responsible for the abuse. It may be a high profile position, but the supreme court doesn't engage with the public at all. The average person will never have any interaction with it.

I knew about them from the most recent court cases, specifically the gay marriage crap on giving out licenses. Through out my research on the judges on the bench for other court cases I wanted to know their political views. Then any time a President had seated one I was always very interested in it.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
LMFAO Is there any particular reason the average American should know who's on the bench? I would guess it's irrelevant to anyone who isn't a judge, lawyer, politician, or DA. I don't know the names of anyone sitting on the bench in Canada. Not even the backwards idiot who got himself in trouble recently for suggesting a victim of sexual abuse was responsible for the abuse. It may be a high profile position, but the supreme court doesn't engage with the public at all. The average person will never have any interaction with it.

I knew about them from the most recent court cases, specifically the gay marriage crap on giving out licenses. Through out my research on the judges on the bench for other court cases I wanted to know their political views. Then any time a President had seated one I was always very interested in it.

Sure, and that is the other thing I found rather pointless in the PDF attached to the article. You are comparing 60+ year olds to 20 somethings. Of course a larger percentage of people who lived through court appointments are going to remember more names. Of course those who were alive during Clinton's impeachment are going to be more familiar with theprocess it was in the news every day. 

The question that really made me shake my head was the horror it expressed at most not knowing congress has the power to declare war, but the last President who got a declaration of war from Congress was FDR. While Congress has the power in theory, in practice they clearly don't. Presidents have been fighting undeclared wars since FDRs secret air war against Japan.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
This is where

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
LMFAO Is there any particular reason the average American should know who's on the bench? I would guess it's irrelevant to anyone who isn't a judge, lawyer, politician, or DA. I don't know the names of anyone sitting on the bench in Canada. Not even the backwards idiot who got himself in trouble recently for suggesting a victim of sexual abuse was responsible for the abuse. It may be a high profile position, but the supreme court doesn't engage with the public at all. The average person will never have any interaction with it.

I knew about them from the most recent court cases, specifically the gay marriage crap on giving out licenses. Through out my research on the judges on the bench for other court cases I wanted to know their political views. Then any time a President had seated one I was always very interested in it.

I have big problems with the court--politcal points of view. They can have their political views, but those views aren't supposed to be incorporated into decisions. If so, they're nothing more then another political opposition group, to each other. They're supposed to be interpreting the constution and how it applies to a situation. The constitution is Apolitical, and is about estasblishment of certian things with no political direction.

The whole constitution has been fudged over and replaced in politcal party directions. IE-checks and balances are no longer between government establishments, but rather between political parties. Neither side has to necessarily be delving into anything constitutional. Poltical points of view rarely deal with actual facts and are based mostly on preference. When analyzing the present presidentail floks I see nothing more then monkeyism.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
http://www.snopes.com/college

http://www.snopes.com/college-grads-judge-judy/

After reading that article I have to say the source material of the topic is on rather shaky ground. It was a multiple choice question, and I bet anyone who didn't know the answer just picked an option at random.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I have big

Old Seer wrote:

I have big problems with the court--politcal points of view. They can have their political views, but those views aren't supposed to be incorporated into decisions. If so, they're nothing more then another political opposition group, to each other. They're supposed to be interpreting the constution and how it applies to a situation. The constitution is Apolitical, and is about estasblishment of certian things with no political direction.

The whole constitution has been fudged over and replaced in politcal party directions. IE-checks and balances are no longer between government establishments, but rather between political parties. Neither side has to necessarily be delving into anything constitutional. Poltical points of view rarely deal with actual facts and are based mostly on preference. When analyzing the present presidentail floks I see nothing more then monkeyism.

Yep. Personal and political views should not be included.

It is my opinion that the supreme court really screwed things up with the 2nd amendment. I believe that not only was personal opinion used but they were bribed by the gun lobbyists to allow the biggest blunder of the supreme court in modern times.

The 2nd amendment is out dated and needs to be completely re-written, unfortunately the way the government is now it will never be changed for the better.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/college-grads-judge-judy/ After reading that article I have to say the source material of the topic is on rather shaky ground. It was a multiple choice question, and I bet anyone who didn't know the answer just picked an option at random.

I noted that too.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i once had a friend, who

i once had a friend, who knows much more about constitutional law than i do, argue, quite convincingly at the time, that the constitution never gave the supreme court power to rule on the constitutionality of laws and that they basically stole that power through fait accompli. i know in the UK, for example, the supreme court (which, granted, has only existed for a couple years now) emphatically does not have that power because of parliamentary sovereignty. too bad i don't recall any of his arguments because i'm a total philistine in that area.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i once had a

iwbiek wrote:
i once had a friend, who knows much more about constitutional law than i do, argue, quite convincingly at the time, that the constitution never gave the supreme court power to rule on the constitutionality of laws and that they basically stole that power through fait accompli.

I hadn't heard this before but it does not surprise me.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i once had a

iwbiek wrote:
i once had a friend, who knows much more about constitutional law than i do, argue, quite convincingly at the time, that the constitution never gave the supreme court power to rule on the constitutionality of laws and that they basically stole that power through fait accompli. i know in the UK, for example, the supreme court (which, granted, has only existed for a couple years now) emphatically does not have that power because of parliamentary sovereignty. too bad i don't recall any of his arguments because i'm a total philistine in that area.

www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137

That was the issue fought over in Marbury vs Madison. Though, I wouldn't characterize it as the judiciary "stealing" the power, since the power was granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which passed both houses by a convincing margin and was signed by Washington. Madison's view that the law was unconstitutional was a minority one among the heavy hitters. So if you believe the Court wasn't intended to have the power of judicial review, it would be more accurate to say Congress and the President abdicated it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X