Stupidity

(redirected from Tupid)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal.

Stupidity

Abdera
maritime city whose inhabitants were known proverbially for their stupidity. [Gk. Folklore: Benét, 2]
Boeotians
inhabitants of rural Greek district; considered by Athenians to be dolts. [Gk. Folklore: Brewer Dictionary, 124]
Chelm
mythical place inhabited by amiable simpletons. [Jew. Folklore: Rosten, 84]
donkey
chooses cuckoo’s singing over nightingale’s. [Ger. Folk-lore and Poetry: Brentano and Arnim, Des Knaben Wunderhorn; NCE, 363]
Dull, Anthony
archexample of stupidity. [Br. Lit.: Love’s Labour’s Lost]
Elbow
ignorant, blundering constable. [Br. Lit.: Measure for Measure]
Gimpel
a baker, foolish to the point of saintliness, is cuckolded and mocked, becomes a Wandering Jew. [Jewish Lit.: Singer Gimpel the Fool in Weiss, 174]
Mendel, Menachem
hopeless schlemiel who devises impossible enterprises. [Yid. Lit.: Sholem Aleichem in Haydn & Fuller, 685]
pomegranate
symbol of foolishness. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 176]
Simple Simon
simpleton of bumptious ways. [Nurs. Rhyme: Opie, 385]
Slender
“though well-landed, an idiot.” [Br. Lit.: Merry Wives of Windsor]
Smith, Knucklehead
dummy with self-referring name. [TV: “Winchell and Mahoney” in Terrace, II, 190–192]
Snerd, Mortimer
a real dummy. [Radio: “The Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy Show” in Buxton, 76–77]
Stephen
simpleton; made gapingstock by all. [Br. Lit.: Every Man in His Humour]
three wise men of Gotham
fools momentarily afloat in a light bowl. [Nuns. Rhyme: Opie, 193]
Allusions—Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Social choice theorists believe that Arrow's theorem undermines the possibility of such a will because they take the TUPID conditions to define a minimal, but essential, standard of reflexive authenticity for collective will-revealing procedures.
It hinges on the idea that practical deliberation about how to be true to oneself has a characteristic depth structure that is incompatible with the TUPID model of the will.
From the viewpoint of the TUPID model, the only salient difference between the two votes is the time at which they occurred and the fact that at those moments the pattern of emergent preferences was different.
[10] It follows that if this alternative conception is reasonable, then we have found at least one collective will-revealing procedure in which relaxing the TUPID conditions is innocent.
The claim that the TUPID conditions cannot result in a coherent will can now be interpreted simply as a formalization of the claim that wanton collectivi ties, like wanton individuals, are systematically unable to form a will.