therightfangirl | Republicans buy shoes, too. (Reply)

(I posted this on my journal earlier and

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 ~~hellfire~~ 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.