I don't know about stupid, but there are certainly categories of "wrong."
Asimov may have started it with his famous essay "The Relativity of Wrong" where he points out (and, boy do I hate to try to paraphrase Asimov!) that saying the Earth is flat is wrong, but since it is a potato-lumpy oblate spheroid (if you measure close enough) it is also wrong to say it is round; HOWEVER, saying these are both equally wrong statements is much, much wronger than either of them.
The point of the essay being that science generally progresses, and each successive answer is a little more accurate. But anyhow.
That probably led to the formation of "Wronger than Wrong." I myself use "Trivially Wrong," in which there's a specific error but the overall picture ends up essentially the same.
But then you get more interesting nuances like, "Fractally Wrong," in which the wrong conclusion is made from the wrong arguments based on the wrong data; it is wrong at every level you examine it.
And of course there's our friend Pauli with "Not Even Wrong," when whatever it is, is formulated/presented/argued in a fashion so orthogonal to evidence or logic it isn't possible to engage with it in any rational manner.
