When I heard that social media was in lather over the idiotic question of whether a hundred men could defeat a single silverback gorilla in hand-to-hand combat, I immediately thought of the scene above from the film “Stand by Me.” But those characters in the movie (based on Stephen King’s novella “The Body” and directed by Rob Reiner before Trump-Derangement ate his brain) were twelve. There are so many fascinating and important questions that not only are fun to ponder but that also are beneficial for society to debate that the social phenomenon of millions being obsessed with an idiotic hypothetical of no value whatsoever threatens to plunge me into a pit of despond.

Why should I devote my time and energies to trying to inspire my fellow human beings to become more skilled at ethical reasoning when this crap is what more of them find stimulating? “Fiddling while Rome burns” is dumb; arguing about impossible hypotheticals as ridiculous as whether Superman could beat Mighty Mouse in a fight—which in my view is a better question to argue over than the gorilla vs. 100 men nonsense—makes fictional Emperor Nero seem positively enterprising.

Calling this a “thought-experiment” is insulting to thought experiments, but it apparently first was raised on TikTok several years ago. Never mind that gorillas are generally reticent and would never engage in such a match: a Twitter/X post on the topic a week ago re-ignited the debate. As you can see, the author is a moron; @DreamChasnMike wrote, “i think 100 niggas could beat 1 gorilla everybody just gotta be dedicated to the shit.” Call me an elitist if you must, but as a matter of principle I would avoid reflexively pondering anything deemed worthy of discussion by someone like Mike. The fact that so many otherwise rational people are rushing to do so now is worthy of analysis, however.

Is it because so many, like me, have decided that the Trump-Deranged are officially mentally ill, and can only be engaged in infantile discussions? Is it because, as I have speculated here before more than once, the efforts of our rotten, political indoctrinating education system and our dishonest, biased, incompetent journalism have combined to lower the media IQ in the U.S. to around 83?

Opinion on the humans vs. gorilla brawl have generated such theories as letting the last human live “so he can tell everyone what happened,” to the humans strategizing how to restrain a 400-pound ape together, and playing dead once the the powerful primate prevails. “I’m helping the gorilla,” wrote comedian Niles Abston. One wag suggested that the human combatants use sign language to defuse the situtaion, like the scientists who have been studying the ability of gorillas to communicate. The Encyclopedia Britannica has posted a “100 Men vs. 1 Gorilla Study Pack™️,” consisting of anatomical diagrams of both humans and gorillas. I guess the fading and passe information source calculates that Americans who would never pick up a book, much less an encyclopedia volume, will be engaged by that resource.

‘Rolling Stone,” a completely untrustworthy publication that usually works at making its readers dumber by more conventional means, engaged a wildlife conservationist and two primatologists to provide intelligent answers to the stupid question. I have a better question to offer: How is a public so easily diverted into debates like this able to decide whether, for example, absolute freedom of speech should be a right of anyone in this uniquely idealistic country, “the Land of the Free,” or if non-citizens, particularly non-citizens who are here illegally, still should be awash in Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison and and Mr. Mason’s daring absolutism?

Incidentally, Superman would obviously smoke Mighty Mouse in a fight, and quickly too. What a stupid question…