“愚蠢、愚蠢、愚蠢”用英语怎么说？
分类：网校动态日期：2024-08-29 13:17:49人气：
答案可以在美国《经济学人》2022年10月22日发表的《校园打架——疯狂纲要》一文的第一段中找到。
《经济学人》2022 年10 月22 日美国
查字典
daft adj. 愚蠢的愚蠢，愚蠢，愚蠢
造一个句子
无论如何，这是一个相当愚蠢的想法。
无论如何，这是一个非常愚蠢的想法。
dislodge v.（特别是在外力的影响下）将某人撤换或免职
造一个句子
红袜队需要两场胜利才能将洋基队从第一名的位置上赶下来。
波士顿红袜队必须赢得两场比赛才能将纽约洋基队从第一名的位置上淘汰。
似乎美国文明面临的其他威胁还不够多，学校里毛茸茸的孩子或被认为是动物的孩子在全国范围内的流行已经引起了很多关注。流行的社交媒体账户，包括Libs of TikTok（该账户强调了自由派所做的愚蠢事情）传播了这样的观点：学童自我认同为猫，老师们在学校卫生间里放置垃圾箱，以便他们可以舒适地排便。这实际上不是真的。但这一想法成为主流的速度表明，社交媒体如何能够证实党派人士对另一方最疯狂的想法，以及这种幻想一旦扎根，是多么难以消除。
下一篇:傻、傻、傻的区别
用户评论
What a foolish title! It doesn't give any context or reason for the frustration.
有13位网友表示赞同！
Such a harsh title. It makes me wonder if the content is equally unhelpful.
有7位网友表示赞同！
It seems like the author is in a bad mood. The title is negative without any explanation.
有13位网友表示赞同！
"Foolish, foolish, foolish" doesn't do justice to the topic, imo.
有17位网友表示赞同！
I hope the content isn't as simplistic as the title suggests.
有13位网友表示赞同！
That title is a bit of a downer. I was looking forward to reading something insightful.
有14位网友表示赞同！
I can't help but feel that the title is an overreaction. Let's hope the article isn't.
有18位网友表示赞同！
It's a shame the title is so negative. The subject might actually be quite interesting.
有20位网友表示赞同！
"Foolish, foolish, foolish" doesn't inspire confidence in the author's argument.
有15位网友表示赞同！
It's too bad the author chose such a negative tone. I was curious about the content.
有9位网友表示赞同！
Maybe the author is being sarcastic? The title is definitely eye-catching, though.
有17位网友表示赞同！
The title is off-putting. I'll pass on this one unless it's a joke.
有11位网友表示赞同！
"Foolish, foolish, foolish" feels like a lack of thought put into the title.
有19位网友表示赞同！
I'm intrigued by the title. It's unusual and makes me want to see what the fuss is about.
有14位网友表示赞同！
It's not a good sign when the title is so negative. I hope the article redeems itself.
有14位网友表示赞同！
I wish the author would choose a more constructive title. "Foolish, foolish, foolish" isn't helpful.
有19位网友表示赞同！
The title is harsh, but it might be justified if the content is equally critical.
有19位网友表示赞同！
I'm confused by the title. What exactly is foolish about the topic?
有13位网友表示赞同！