Republicans buy shoes, too.
Jan. 8th, 2010 01:26 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mynuet.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
therightfangirl(I posted this on my journal earlier and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
foxfire74 told me I should cross-post it here. I do drop the f-bomb fairly liberally, so should I warn for language?)
There's very little guaranteed to make a small spike in my blood pressure than a random political swipe in my entertainment choices. Seriously, liberals, you can feel me here if you imagine that, at any point where you're watching tv, surfing the web, watching a movie, and all of a sudden you get a screed about how anyone who supports gay marriage is advocating the destruction of religion. It's one thing if I was seeking out politicized content, but if I just want to watch shit get blown up, can't I do that without having to be told I'm stupid?
The worst is when the person doing the mocking is themselves basing their entire premise on sheer, mindless idiocy. See ANY random snickering over "teabagging" for an example. Yeah, I said it. On the one side, you've got people saying, "High taxes are a bad economic model, contrary to the principles on which this country was founded, and we'd like to actually keep some of our own money, thank you. We don't get to spend more than twice what we make, why should the government? A tea party was integral to making this point once already, so we'll look back to 1773 and throw some more to try to get people's attention."
On the other side? Beavis and Butthead snickering about "They said teabag. Heh heh heh."
You want to argue that the American colonists actually paid relatively low taxes compared to the people back in England, that high taxes are a necessary evil, that deficit spending is justified? Hey, knock yourself out. You want to snicker like a twelve year old because you made a connection to sexual slang? It's a free country. You don't, though, get to simultaneously act like a twelve year old AND make fun of the other side for being stupid. That finger points straight back at you, my friend.
As for what set this off: a webcomic I read decided to have a cartoon cat argue with a strawman on the topic of global warming.
TV: This just in! Cold weather dominates north America! So much for global warming, haw haw haw!
Cat: Yes, that makes sense. It gets cold in winter, so climate change is fake.
TV: But... but the fake emails!
Cat: Some paid grant-fund types fudged data to keep the money flowing. That doesn't change the fact that Mt. Kilimanjaro now has no snowcap to speak of. The climate is changing, and you monkeys did have a hand in it.
(The tv then asks why a cat cares and the cat wants humans around to serve it.)
Now, there's room for good people to disagree on the topic. There is even, despite the reluctance of both sides to admit it, room for compromise and meeting in the middle. But the presentation here is fatally flawed to the point of being offensive.
1. The fact that the weather is consistently getting colder does belie the claims that the climate was inexorably warming, to the point where overheating of the earth was supposed to be a clear and present danger. The fact that the sudden sharp rise in temperature predicted by the models used for ginning up fear has not materialized means that, at the very least, some new models are called for.
2. I'll grant a point for actually acknowledging that the East Anglia CRU did fudge data to keep getting grant money. A lot of people are still hysterically trying to spin a way to deny the simple fact that a lot of the raw data on temperature has been changed, made up, or thrown away. I'll return the favor and concede that just because one group of people acted in bad faith to try to settle things once and for all does not prove definitively that they were wrong or that the people who agree with them are also dishonest.
3. Even granting 100% accuracy to the claim about Mt. Kilimanjaro - what does that prove? First off, it's not as if Mother Earth provided a detailed list about what temperature every corner of the globe is supposed to be. Years ago, the top of that mountain was covered in snow. Years ago, London was so cold that the Thames froze solid and a carnival was held on the ice. Years ago, Greenland was actually green. Which point in history should be designated as providing the optimal temperature against which rising or falling should be measured?
Secondly, there's two aspects to the issue of climate change: whether it happens, and whether it has anything to do with the activities of mankind. The first is actually pretty definitively proven by historical records, as alluded to above. There might not be accurate thermometer readings, but we know from first-hand accounts that Europe went through both a little ice age and what's called the medieval warming period. For that matter, it seems unlikely the dinosaurs shared our weather patterns.
Where the rabid debate comes in is on the second point, and this is where the middle ground tends to be a no-man's-land riddled with foxholes and mortar craters, between the zealots who declare that everybody (except them, if they're a celebrity of some sort or just your average hypocrite) has to completely give up all modern conveniences and repent their sins against Gaia or the world will burn in eternalhellfire warming, and the zealots who think no one will notice a little toxic waste in the water table and an orange tinge adds a festive charm to the air.
Here's the thing, though, if the way you approach compromise is "You do things my way, or else. And, btw, you're stupid!" - I don't see anyone rushing to say that you're awesome and they totally see the error of their ways. The more of this kind of bullshit I see, the more I want to try to listen to Glenn Beck and burn down an old-growth forest stuffed full of endangered species. It's not a good impulse. I don't even like Glenn Beck, because he's gotten so melodramatic and involved in conspiracy theories that he's just not entertaining. He sure drives people nuts though, and the more some sanctimonious twit tells me that I shouldn't listen to him, the more I want to hear what he has to say. The more someone tells me I'm an idiot for saying, "Um. You haven't proven your case and yet the entire western economy needs to be turned topsy turvy?" the less we can find the common ground which does exist.
And for fuck's sake, half of your potential audience in the US is going to disagree with you politically. Unless your shtick depends on political thought, why throw it in there? You want to talk about shoving your balls in someone's face - why should I continue to contribute to your income by being your audience if all you're going to do is call me stupid, in a way that shows no actual thought and makes you seem even stupider than what you're arguing against? Fuck that noise. There's a reason why Fox News gets better ratings at 3am than any show on CNN and most shows on MSNBC, and it's not because we're all racists. It's because we're tired of being told, "Hey, believe what the cool kids believe, sneer at what the cool kids sneer at, or you're a moron and a homophobe and a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist! You're worse than Hitler!"
Yeah. I'm convinced. I totally want to be like you now. All that thinking I was doing - why did I bother? Independent thought is so totally passe, and admitting the other side might have a point is for losers. I'm totally not a racist, and I'll prove it by going along with whatever I'm told to believe by the person calling me names, just so they'll stop calling me names.
Just, seriously, GAH. Support your arguments or realize you're the stupid one. That's all I ask.
foxfire74 told me I should cross-post it here. I do drop the f-bomb fairly liberally, so should I warn for language?)There's very little guaranteed to make a small spike in my blood pressure than a random political swipe in my entertainment choices. Seriously, liberals, you can feel me here if you imagine that, at any point where you're watching tv, surfing the web, watching a movie, and all of a sudden you get a screed about how anyone who supports gay marriage is advocating the destruction of religion. It's one thing if I was seeking out politicized content, but if I just want to watch shit get blown up, can't I do that without having to be told I'm stupid?
The worst is when the person doing the mocking is themselves basing their entire premise on sheer, mindless idiocy. See ANY random snickering over "teabagging" for an example. Yeah, I said it. On the one side, you've got people saying, "High taxes are a bad economic model, contrary to the principles on which this country was founded, and we'd like to actually keep some of our own money, thank you. We don't get to spend more than twice what we make, why should the government? A tea party was integral to making this point once already, so we'll look back to 1773 and throw some more to try to get people's attention."
On the other side? Beavis and Butthead snickering about "They said teabag. Heh heh heh."
You want to argue that the American colonists actually paid relatively low taxes compared to the people back in England, that high taxes are a necessary evil, that deficit spending is justified? Hey, knock yourself out. You want to snicker like a twelve year old because you made a connection to sexual slang? It's a free country. You don't, though, get to simultaneously act like a twelve year old AND make fun of the other side for being stupid. That finger points straight back at you, my friend.
As for what set this off: a webcomic I read decided to have a cartoon cat argue with a strawman on the topic of global warming.
TV: This just in! Cold weather dominates north America! So much for global warming, haw haw haw!
Cat: Yes, that makes sense. It gets cold in winter, so climate change is fake.
TV: But... but the fake emails!
Cat: Some paid grant-fund types fudged data to keep the money flowing. That doesn't change the fact that Mt. Kilimanjaro now has no snowcap to speak of. The climate is changing, and you monkeys did have a hand in it.
(The tv then asks why a cat cares and the cat wants humans around to serve it.)
Now, there's room for good people to disagree on the topic. There is even, despite the reluctance of both sides to admit it, room for compromise and meeting in the middle. But the presentation here is fatally flawed to the point of being offensive.
1. The fact that the weather is consistently getting colder does belie the claims that the climate was inexorably warming, to the point where overheating of the earth was supposed to be a clear and present danger. The fact that the sudden sharp rise in temperature predicted by the models used for ginning up fear has not materialized means that, at the very least, some new models are called for.
2. I'll grant a point for actually acknowledging that the East Anglia CRU did fudge data to keep getting grant money. A lot of people are still hysterically trying to spin a way to deny the simple fact that a lot of the raw data on temperature has been changed, made up, or thrown away. I'll return the favor and concede that just because one group of people acted in bad faith to try to settle things once and for all does not prove definitively that they were wrong or that the people who agree with them are also dishonest.
3. Even granting 100% accuracy to the claim about Mt. Kilimanjaro - what does that prove? First off, it's not as if Mother Earth provided a detailed list about what temperature every corner of the globe is supposed to be. Years ago, the top of that mountain was covered in snow. Years ago, London was so cold that the Thames froze solid and a carnival was held on the ice. Years ago, Greenland was actually green. Which point in history should be designated as providing the optimal temperature against which rising or falling should be measured?
Secondly, there's two aspects to the issue of climate change: whether it happens, and whether it has anything to do with the activities of mankind. The first is actually pretty definitively proven by historical records, as alluded to above. There might not be accurate thermometer readings, but we know from first-hand accounts that Europe went through both a little ice age and what's called the medieval warming period. For that matter, it seems unlikely the dinosaurs shared our weather patterns.
Where the rabid debate comes in is on the second point, and this is where the middle ground tends to be a no-man's-land riddled with foxholes and mortar craters, between the zealots who declare that everybody (except them, if they're a celebrity of some sort or just your average hypocrite) has to completely give up all modern conveniences and repent their sins against Gaia or the world will burn in eternal
Here's the thing, though, if the way you approach compromise is "You do things my way, or else. And, btw, you're stupid!" - I don't see anyone rushing to say that you're awesome and they totally see the error of their ways. The more of this kind of bullshit I see, the more I want to try to listen to Glenn Beck and burn down an old-growth forest stuffed full of endangered species. It's not a good impulse. I don't even like Glenn Beck, because he's gotten so melodramatic and involved in conspiracy theories that he's just not entertaining. He sure drives people nuts though, and the more some sanctimonious twit tells me that I shouldn't listen to him, the more I want to hear what he has to say. The more someone tells me I'm an idiot for saying, "Um. You haven't proven your case and yet the entire western economy needs to be turned topsy turvy?" the less we can find the common ground which does exist.
And for fuck's sake, half of your potential audience in the US is going to disagree with you politically. Unless your shtick depends on political thought, why throw it in there? You want to talk about shoving your balls in someone's face - why should I continue to contribute to your income by being your audience if all you're going to do is call me stupid, in a way that shows no actual thought and makes you seem even stupider than what you're arguing against? Fuck that noise. There's a reason why Fox News gets better ratings at 3am than any show on CNN and most shows on MSNBC, and it's not because we're all racists. It's because we're tired of being told, "Hey, believe what the cool kids believe, sneer at what the cool kids sneer at, or you're a moron and a homophobe and a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist! You're worse than Hitler!"
Yeah. I'm convinced. I totally want to be like you now. All that thinking I was doing - why did I bother? Independent thought is so totally passe, and admitting the other side might have a point is for losers. I'm totally not a racist, and I'll prove it by going along with whatever I'm told to believe by the person calling me names, just so they'll stop calling me names.
Just, seriously, GAH. Support your arguments or realize you're the stupid one. That's all I ask.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:27 pm (UTC)On the other side? Beavis and Butthead snickering about "They said teabag. Heh heh heh."/i
Every once in a while I'll forget that it's impossible to hold a logical conversation with the climate change fanatics and will make the mistake of trying to point out the inconsistencies. And I always end up wanting to bang my head on a hard surface. My most recent attempt garnered a half-dozen very nasty replies that all focused on a "throw away" comment about Jon Stewart not being a reliable resource for facts. Everything else I wrote was basically ignored and they focused on being offended by my "dissing" of Stewart.
I despair. There is no way to convince a fanatic of the failure of their argument when they ignore any facts that contradict what they "know" to be real. It's as if, if they feel something strongly enough it will be true.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:44 pm (UTC)I need chocolate.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:48 pm (UTC)I agree totally about the chocolate. It's too freaking cold to go get some, though, so I'm going to have cheesecake instead.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 08:28 pm (UTC)Chocolate will bring back the balance (it always does0. Think I'm gonna break out my Cupcake in a Cup recipe. Might need two cups.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-09 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:48 pm (UTC)YIS,
WRI
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 10:33 pm (UTC)http://lileks.com/bleat/?p=5090
no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-08 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-09 12:12 am (UTC)You want to argue that the American colonists actually paid relatively low taxes compared to the people back in England, that high taxes are a necessary evil, that deficit spending is justified?
That is not what the Boston Tea Party was about.
You want to snicker like a twelve year old because you made a connection to sexual slang?
Speaking of strawmen...
The fact that the weather is consistently getting colder does belie the claims that the climate was inexorably warming...
http://community.livejournal.com/therightfangirl/1048828.html?thread=10808572#t10808572
Years ago, Greenland was actually green.
Sure, if you mean hundreds of thousands of years (http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/). You are helping Erik the Red do his advertising.
...and what's called the medieval warming period.
AKA weather is not climate (http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/).
Where the rabid debate comes in is on the second point...
1. True or false: carbon dioxide is an insulator, or "greenhouse gas".
2. True or false: carbon dioxide is released by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels.
The more of this kind of bullshit I see, the more I want to try to listen to Glenn Beck and burn down an old-growth forest stuffed full of endangered species.
I bet you're one of those people who smokes more cigarettes when you hear someone say smoking is icky.
"Um. You haven't proven your case and yet the entire western economy needs to be turned topsy turvy?"
The point has been proven, and the entire western economy doesn't need to be turned topsy-turvy. Why are you against jobs researching, manufacturing, and fixing renewable technologies that would get us off a Saudi Arabian crutch? You know, business? Capitalism? More of that stuff?
I doubt the peak oil people are right when they say it's all going to run out in the next 10/20/50 years, but it is going away eventually. The sooner we start looking at alternatives, the more dividends we reap.
There's a reason why Fox News gets better ratings at 3am than any show on CNN and most shows on MSNBC...
Would that make them one of those mainstream media types?
It's because we're tired of being told, "Hey, believe what the cool kids believe, sneer at what the cool kids sneer at, or you're a moron and a homophobe and a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist! You're worse than Hitler!"
Why are your cool kids better than other cool kids? No, really. Why?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-09 12:55 am (UTC)I believe the term is "the last straw". Would've been mine too, except 1) Two Lumps pissed me off the last time they got political and 2) I've already had my "conservatives are people too" rant for the quarter. (Which was triggered after reading some book review. It happens.)
I know of few or no conservatives who dispute the existence of global warming; what we dispute is the "Day After Tomorrow" viewpoint and the sanctimonious control-freaks propounding it. Liberals, for all their vaunted sensitivity to nuance, seem incapable of anything but binary thinking: conservatives aren't going OMG GLOBAL WARMING WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE, so obviously we don't believe in its existence at all. (Unless, of course, we're just plain Evil because liberals are Good; nobody ever just disagrees.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-09 01:07 am (UTC)Okay, the Boston Tea Party. The basic slogan was "No taxation without representation," and it was a form of civil disobedience. It was one of a series of back-and-forth measures and counter-measures between American agitators and the government of England. While not specifically about the amount of taxes, a lot of the overarching disagreement was over the fact that Americans had not borne as high a burden as Britons for the wars that Britain had fought in the recent past, and when they started being asked to drastically up how much money they kicked in, the squealing started. The principles of the Age of Enlightenment in general were also a contributing factor to the formation of an ideal of republican governance, representation in government, etc. If you'd been a bit more specific in terms of what you think the Boston Tea Party was about, and what I mischaracterized, I could be a bit more specific in explaining myself. As it is, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what your point is, especially given as your response gives the impression that you think I said the BTP was about deficit spending.
Linking to your own comment seems a bit egotistical - if I'm not going to believe Michael Mann or Al Gore in an Appeal to Authority, why should I accept you? You also missed the point, so let me restate it: The claims that the weather was going to warm and warm and continue to warm are self-evidently false. Later claims that this is a bubble in an overall pattern, that there are natural fluctuations, etc. show some response to conditions on the ground, just like the switch to global warming versus coming ice age was a response to conditions actually observed. That doesn't change that the claim that the weather is warming, will continue warming, and we need to respond nownownow or they'll be waterskiing in Helsinki by December were a trifle premature.
I'm not engaging the pro-AGW websites, because then I'd just quote anti-AGW websites at you and we're both swirling in a roshambo of "Hey, these people say what I want to hear!" If you want to try to prove to someone that they are totally wrong, don't do it with biased sources.
True or false: Carbon dioxide serves a purpose, and cannot be eradicated without eradicating all life on earth. Hey, you get to ask specious questions in an attempt to seem like you're clinching a debate, I do too.
I hate to disappoint you, but I haven't burned down any forests. But, yes, despite never having been a smoker, reading about banning people from smoking in their own cars or even their own homes makes me want to go to the nanny-stater's homes and light up a whole carton. It's not a logical impulse or something I would ever do, but there it is.
Saying the point has been proven does not actually prove the point, however much you reallyreally believe. That only works in terms of reviving Tinkerbell, and the fix is in on that one. I'll also note I didn't say anything about discouraging alternative energy, nor about thinking the status quo is peachykeen hunkydory. You attributed thoughts and beliefs to me that I do not hold. You might want to consider why you felt you had to do that.
You would think that'd make Fox a mainstream outlet, but the White House says it just isn't so.
Again, you attribute thoughts to me that you have no basis for supporting. No, really. See, what I said was not, "You should all agree with me!" What I said was, "Stop telling me that I have to agree with you, especially when your method is peer pressure rather than logic."
So, yes. I think you should consider working some more on reading comprehension before you set out to troll, and I think we've reached the end of where I find talking to you entertaining. Feel free to keep going if you want; far be it from me to deny you your simple pleasures in life.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 08:24 pm (UTC)No, I just didn't feel like retyping what I'd already explained and sourced elsewhere. If you disagree with it, whatever.
The claims that the weather was going to warm and warm and continue to warm are self-evidently false.
Nobody sane is claiming that. It's like touching a spinning top, a little nudge can cause a bunch of wobblyness. A little global temperature fluctuation, just a couple degrees, can cause global climate instability.
If you want to try to prove to someone that they are totally wrong, don't do it with biased sources.
The site I link to itself links to unbiased sources.
True or false: Carbon dioxide serves a purpose, and cannot be eradicated without eradicating all life on earth.
It does. As does sodium and potassium, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJslbQiYrYY).
Saying the point has been proven does not actually prove the point, however much you reallyreally believe.
What proof have you seen that makes you reallyreallybelieve that AGW is an issue?
I'll also note I didn't say anything about discouraging alternative energy, nor about thinking the status quo is peachykeen hunkydory. You attributed thoughts and beliefs to me that I do not hold.
I do not know your thoughts on them, so I substituted the thoughts and beliefs I've seen elsewhere in the conservative media.
You would think that'd make Fox a mainstream outlet, but the White House says it just isn't so.
I believe the White House statement was about them not being a news outlet (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/11/white-house-says-fox-not-news-network), not that they weren't mainstream.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 12:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-12 10:38 pm (UTC)