if he was at all doubting the Republicans or had started to sour on the administration. Nope
Bush could eat a baby on live television and there'd still be people who'd vote for him.
We live in a country where substantial numbers of people still don't believe in fucking evolution, so I'm not sure what the solution is.
Guns, man. The solution is always guns.
I guess that's what I always find so interesting about hanging out with him. This is someone very similar to me who I like and respect and share many of the same ideals with about other things (mostly computers and programming) yet we're SO far apart about this. And he's a very intelligent and well-read guy. And yet...
That's how I always feel when I hang out with conservatives. They seem so... normal. They do the same things I do and have similar opinions about lots of things. But their political views are just so distant form mine that it's hard to believe we're living in the same country.
All this talk of Zidane and you didn't headbutt some sense into him? Tsk.
He may be a bright guy, but anybody who still thinks global warming is bullshit, um, isn't actually a very bright guy.
I'm just curious about how it happens that you can enjoy being in the company of someone so clearly closed-minded.
I don't mean that as an insult to either party, I'm just curious, since in the same situation I would find myself intensely frustrated. But then, perhaps that's me being closed-minded.
It seems fair enough to have enjoyable chats to people who don't necessarily hold the same views as yourself, but surely constructive conversation can only occur if people are willing to accept at least moderate credibility for each others ideas to start with.
Alright, so we think that not believing in evolution or global warming is bullshit. But at least most of us know something about it for starters, and I haven't met anyone yet who knew what they were talking about and still thought it was nonsense. So evidentally this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Therefore he's got views that don't hold up under any form of scrutiny other than his own and that of those like him.
Which is the sort of thing that seems to always frustrate intelligent people. So I really don't see how you can stand the man. Either you have incredible patience (a definate virtue) or he's got a sense of humour, which is something most conservatives seem to lack a bit of.
Just curious.
I think reason in many if not most people is overshadowed by an emotional need to see the world in a certain way, and most of what passes for disinterested reason is actually devoted to shoring up the world-view that is comfortable for them.
I have a relative who is not stupid, but was the oldest in his family and the only boy, and grew up feeling he had certain privileges by nature. He identifies with authority, likes the world to be orderly and hierarchical, subscribes to the bootstrap myth of How-I-got-Where-I-Am-Today (or did, until his boss fired his 55-year-old ass to replace him with someone younger and cheaper), and is a hard-core Republican.
I'd can't ask him what he thinks of what's going on now, because if he told me I might have to headbutt him, and I'm not good at that.
I have never understood the Unfogged prediliction for maintaining contacts with token Republicans. It may have made sense at one point, but since Gingrich took over the party the Republican Party has become increasingly vicious and fanatical (details on request).
Even the Republicans who don't personally participate in the sliming, threats, treason accusations, etc., are implicated by their silence. The worst Republicans (30% of the electorate) control the party, and for several years now they've effectively controlled the US. Deliberate blindness is culpable, the more so as the effects are greater.
I see this elsewhere than on Unfogged, and I do inadvertantly meet apparently-sane Republicans myself occasionally, and what seems to be behind it is a rock-bottom, unexamined refusal to become too closely identified with (or identified at all with) the Democratic Party or with liberalism.
Often this refusal is justified with decades-old anecdotes about Jimmy Hoffa, George McGovern, Al Sharpton, welfare queens, etc. (Even though Hoffa played ball with the Republicans half the time, and even though Sharpton does not hold office and is only of local importance).
There have been a lot more new horrible anecdotes created by Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, et al, which should trump the anti-Democratic anecdotes, but they never seem to embed themselves in some people's psyches. There are also many lucrative career tracks which are difficult for Democrats and liberals, and many cool, sexy social groups where the Democrats are poison.
Pure open-mindedness isn't what I propose, obviously. I'm not exactly closed-minded myself -- but the links I maintain are with Greens, Chomskyites, Rastafarians, and the like. Openness toward the right and closedness toward the left have, in my opinion, ruined the Democrats.
I've always felt out of place here when serious topics are discussed, and usually I bite my tongue and wait for the cock jokes. But increasingly less so recently, as the overall situation has become, in my estimation, increasingly alarming.
I have never understood the Unfogged prediliction for maintaining contacts with token Republicans.
Because there's more to people than their politics.
We should all just take a break from this stuff and read Critique of Cynical Reason.
"I've always felt out of place here when serious topics are discussed, and usually I bite my tongue and wait for the cock jokes."
Consider the possibility that the "serious topics" are just cock jokes in a different form?
14: Obviously, that's just my own reason. Can't speak for anybody else.
Your friend isn't stupid for not believing in global warming, he just doesn't know much about science, specifically, how science works. it is a real black mark on our educational system that smart people can actually graduate college and still not know jack shit about science.
I do have Republican friends, but we have to avoid politics entirely, and I admit that it puts a big crimp on the friendship. But there seems to be an ethos here of maintaining lines of communications with Republicans (much more so than leftists), and to me that no longer makes sense. Especially if their Republicanism is impervious to reason.
(much more so than leftists)
I suspect this has to do with the number of each in the population at large, rather than their ideologies.
I don't actually identify with the left as a whole, myself. I'm a bit unusual in that I'm a transhumanist, and among liberals, that seems to be invite ridicule, which I find pretty frustrating. I'm also regularly repelled by certain liberals (of the kind you can especially find at places like Alas, a Blog) that are extremely irrational in their opposition to certain kinds of science (for instance, at the intersection of genetics and race and sex), and make extremely weak, (and often with unapologetic confrontationalism that makes conversation with them impossible,) analyses of rights and obligations created by minority group membership.
I'm also very annoyed by anoyone, liberal or conservative, who asserts that there are no or negligably few reasonable and engageable people on the other side of the fence. When they're pointed to sites where the discourse *is* calm and rational, they discount those as insincere.
There are plenty of people, like Atrios or SCMT, who adopt or advocate an adversarial and dirty style of discourse as a pragmatic means to a desired end. Those people don't really annoy me. That style of discourse does, but no one's forcing me to read Eschaton or The Poor Man. But what does annoy me is when people who generally have calm, rational discourse flatly dismiss the possibility of engaging with calm rational people on the other side. The kind of people who would rather ban Idealist from here than talk to him.
It seems like a lot of people just don't understand that, to be rational, you have to have a *lot* of doubt in your convictions about partisian matters, because of the way people are wired.
My belief is that at this time the Democratic Party (which is hardly Left and is barely liberal) is the left party, the liberal party, the centrist party, the libertarian party and to a large extent, the conservative party. This is a function of the institutionalization of the two-party system -- everyone has to compromise and take second-best.
Glenn Greenwald is center-right, but he counts as a Democrat now because he's figured out the Republican Party. And he gets smeared for that.
I just don't think that there's any symmetry, and I don't think that dialogue is possible or appropriate. If someone supports Bush and Delay because they've always been a Republican, and if someone can't imagine ever supporting a Democrat, they have a major problem.
The decent Republicans I know mostly have self-serving, aggresively anti-intellectual ways of blocking out inconvenient realities, and at a certain point this become culpable.
23: Yeah, I know who you were referring to. I was just surprised to see him lumped in with Atrios.
I didn't want to imply a parallelism, (especially making out SCMT to be a poster at The Poor Man) but I was too lazy to fix it.
Most of my conservative friends are of the religious variety, born and raised -- so count them with the heritably deluded. Another is secular and very bright, and aware that he's very bright, and uses his oddball right-libertarian views to keep proving to himself that he's brighter than everyone else. These are people who came into my life by accident, and to the extent I maintain the friendships, we don't talk politics much.
Some lefties can be just as impervious to reason and just as maddening to talk to. I had a roommate who was a full-blown Trotskyist due to a combination of overblown romanticism, lack of critical skills, and a couple of unfortunate college courses, and he was absolutely impossible.
I'm with Emerson on this one. Someone who remains a Republic supporter *now* after all that's happened is, by any reasonable standard, a bad person.
Furthermore, if they combine that with disbelief in both global warming and evolution then they are ignorant as well.
I completely fail to understand, with respect to evolution in particular, how any sane adult could not believe in the rudimentary claims that are at the base of evolutionary theory.*
Further(further)more, anyone who disbelieves in evolution is also, pretty much by definition, not well-read. Unless we count people who are ignorant of basic science as well read.**
* Plenty of scope for disagreement about the details, obviously.
** C.P. Snow, Two Cultures, yadda yadda...
Given Mr. B.'s new job, we are about to (return) to being surrounded primarily with really quite conservative but very bright people as work colleagues. And you know what? I kind of miss that. His military buddies were always extremely good guys, smart and well-informed, and fun to argue with. And I actually like playing the "omg, are you really a feminist?!" role and over time getting people to see that a lot of the things they take for granted aren't necessarily so.
The crazy leftists are perhaps 1% of the population. The crazy Republicans are 30%, and they're in the driver's seat.
I so, so endorse 18. Under my benevolent despotism, the material taught in intro-level logic courses (including inductive reasoning) would be mandatory in high schools, and college degrees would require lab sciences and at least one course covering basic philosophy of science.
PS I am not a crackpot.
I'm a bit unusual in that I'm a transhumanist, and among liberals, that seems to be invite ridicule
Dude, it's not our fault that that's some funny shit.
But what does annoy me is when people who generally have calm, rational discourse flatly dismiss the possibility of engaging with calm rational people on the other side. The kind of people who would rather ban Idealist from here than talk to him.
It's not that there's not rational people on the other side, it's that those people aren't the ones in power. Calm and rational was the order of the day for Kerry 2004. He lost by what, 2 million votes? And Idealist is actually a good example here. He seems like a good guy, but he's pretty openly stated that even at this juncture, he'd still vote for Bush over Kerry. After all we've seen in the last five years, that quite possibly puts him in the "Bush could eat a baby on live television..." camp. He might be fun to discuss things with, but from a political standpoint, reaching out to him is almost certainly a waste of time.
that quite possibly puts him in the "Bush could eat a baby on live television..." camp.
If the baby were marinated in yoghurt first, it would be quite tender, I hear. So I guess it might be OK then. I mean, sure, eating babies is not explicitly covered in the AUMF, but how could you disagree that it is implicit in the war powers. And, of course, all you pro-abortion people hate babies and want to kill them, so why should you care . . . .
Is this what you were looking for?
Who's advocated banning Idealist? I'm probably one of those who gets most pissed off at him, and I don't remember saying that.
Also, I agree with this: It's not that there's not rational people on the other side, it's that those people aren't the ones in power. Rational political discussions often founder on the rocks where reasonable (or at least comprehensible) points of view crash into continued political support for those who are demonstrably not enacting reasonable or comprehensible policies.
How does someone become so Republican that they'll support Bush now? Do some people have that in their DNA?
You can change. You're not doomed by heredity. (I'm probably the first Democrat on either side of my family since Republican Party was founded.) But people say "I'm a Republican" as though that was the whole story right there, so nothing can be done about it.
#34
In all seriousness, what would Bush have to do to get you to reconsider that vote in 2004? If we haven't hit that point yet, it's got to be something pretty impressive.
Clearly Idealist is completely irrational. Who spells "yogurt" with an H?
35: I don't think anyone here has advocated that. There aren't any regulars here that are what I was talking about in 21.
Oh. Okay, my bad. Apologies; I was really just inquiring, but might have sounded snotty.
Who spells "yogurt" with an H?
Someone who graduated in the bottom half of his high school class.
I don't think anyone here has advocated that.
It has been suggested a couple of times that I am a troll and that things would be nicer here if I were not. Generally, though, most of the regular commenters here have been quite cordial. As often happens in life, while the categorical discussions of Republicans and coservatives can be pretty harsh, when you get down to person-to-person communications, people generally are nice.
what would Bush have to do to get you to reconsider that vote in 2004
turn tail and run from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dude, we've pretty much abandoned Afghanistan for all real intents and purposes. And from the beginning we didn't commit the troops we'd really need to Iraq. What's the substantive difference between "turning tail and running" and prosecuting a war in a half-assed way that only pisses off the locals and puts our troops in danger?
Speaking of, what's your take on the VA funding situation?
Dude, it's not our fault that that's some funny shit.
You won't be laughing when their cyborg overlords conquer the planet.
Apo's 14 (Because there's more to people than their politics.) gets it exactly right. Although I admit that I sometimes have trouble looking past people's politics (especially if they are strongly held beliefs) when becoming friends with people if they are radically different than my own and strongly held.
To clarify, he does believe in evolution, "just" not global warming. And he's an engineer, so he does have a strong science background, which is what makes it all the more fascinating to me. He truly holds his anti-global warming beliefs because of how he interprets the science. I'm not at all persuaded by his arguments but we're able to talk about them and other political stuff with good humor and without becoming frustrated with each other, which still made for an enjoyable evening.
A fair number of the Republicans I know are Repblicans in the same way they are Duke fans. They didn't attend the school, they don't work for the school, they aren't getting a single thing from it. No matter how good or bad the team is that year, it's beside the point because they're Duke fans, goddammit (feel free to substitute any other school or professional franchise, if this one doesn't have resonance for you). Plus, the Republicans have been on a winning streak recently, and people always like jumping on the winning bandwagon.
For a lot of people, it really has very little to do with any given policy stances. Many of them couldn't begin to explain a single piece of legislation passed by the GOP ever, beyond "they protect marriage and cut taxes," despite those being generally false statements. And, let's be frank, some of them just don't like black people, who are 90-95% Democratic.
what's your take on the VA funding situation?
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. To be sure, the VA has sucked forever (my vague impression--I have no dealings with them--is that they suck slightly less than they used to), and it has always been true that having more money always could have helped. Is there a particular thing you have in mind? Not , this, I assume
And he's an engineer, so he does have a strong science background, which is what makes it all the more fascinating to me.
You haven't run into this phenomenon before? Engineers make the greatest crackpots; talk.origins got so overrun with them back in the day that it led to the Salem hypothesis.
re: 45
See, I think much of that is right.
However, that makes them *bad* people. I'm quite happy to apportion moral blame to them. Supporting a party that enacts heinous, venal, immoral policies because they are, like, your team is fucking dumb *and* that kind of dumbness is blameworthy.
I just don't see why these people -- continuing Republic voters -- should be cut any moral slack.
Being harsh: obviously you (by which I mean Americans) can't go around abusing these people to their face and calling them amoral or immoral scumbags. Many of these people are family members and friends plus it'd be totally counterproductive. Doesn't mean it isn't true, though.
apostropher,
Please do not humble yourself by diminishing the part you and your like-minded friends are playing to destroy the left.
I encourage those in this thread, especially activists for the DNC, to continue this line of belittling and bullying people into thinking just like you. Take it to the airwaves, blogs and streets. Explain to the people just how important diversity is, take a breath, and then expound on how dangerous conservative minds are.
It is such an effective way to drive people away from the left, the GOP can simply sit back and pass out the membership cards as people stumble over themselves to dissassociate with minds so brilliant, they come up with things like, "Bush hates black people and so do all the Republicans."
Why is Mars also getting warmer?
It doesn't make much sense to assign more blame to a huge group of people. Blaming people is useful only insofar as the blame can be used to concoct policies to change their behavior, or at least mitigate it. I think it's better to say, yeah, most people approach political affiliation the same way they do sports. So, OK. How do we use that insight to strategize? What sort of analysis does it bring? But it doesn't make sense to blame people for being stupid and tribal, any more than it makes sens to blame people for being susceptible to disease.
47 - Yes, I have, and usually I find the engineer/conservative combination to be so frustrating I can barely hold a civil combination with the person. (I recently worked with someone who combined engineer/crackpot/Asperger's and that was mind-boggling.) RWR and I somehow are able to manage productive, interesting discussions.
W3, this thread isn't fpr proselytizing. We're talking internally. We're all baffled by the difficulties in talking to certain people, and frankly we've lost respect for a lot of those people. Bush's core supporters are 30%, and those aren't the people we're trying to convince anyway.
And recently, Bush's actual support ahs been descending down to where his core support is.
re: 50
I don't buy the claim that everyone is equally stupid and tribal or that it's on the level of susceptibility to disease. If we want to claim that it is just like susceptibility to disease and just as moral neutral we're essentially denying that people are moral agents Either we treat people as moral agents or we don't.
If we do, and I'd be strongly inclined to say we ought to, they *are* blameworthy, to a greater or lesser degree..
We ought to strongly resist the idea that there is a moral equivalence between opposing equally tribal sides on this. There isn't.
#49
Ah, tips on civility from the wingnuts. And Mars is hot, so therefore the warming trend on this planet is completely natural.
w3, I hate you.
Idealist just seems dangerously naive, rather than outright malicious. Forgiveable.
I think when you're fargone enough into the right-wing lies, it's not a matter of persuasion -- it's a matter of conversion. The Holy Spirit has to be involved in some way, or else there should be a 12-step program: "Hi, my name is Idealist, and I'm a Republican." It's something you have to fight against every day -- the scars never heal when you've subjected your mind to something so depraved.
But this diversity shit, this exposure to different views -- it presupposes some kind of morally neutral plane in which Republican views are just views that people happen to have, and how interesting.... Well, no, it's not like that. It's not all going to be resolved through conversation and openness. The left hasn't been decimated by not being nice enough -- that should be obvious. The left has been decimated because all it can say is that Republican policies are "stupid" or "don't work" -- when really, they should be saying, "This is immoral." It's not incompetence -- the fact that liberals naturally go for that critique of Bush reflects the real elitism that turns people off about liberals. If liberals could take a genuine principled moral stance on anything, that would be awesome. Instead, they act like it's all just a matter of running the math or something.
We get to choose between an amoral managerialism and an immoral militarism. Awesome.
"It is such an effective way to drive people away from the left"
Probably not. The vitriol you experience in people's statements of the thread is much, much less apparent to people further left than you. What it is is polarizing.
49 - Clearky there's good diversity and bad diversity. Having more people around who want to reinstate slavery, or who believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS, would be a bad thing, "diversity" be damned. Likewise people believing global warming isn't a problem, or invading Iraq was a good idea.
"Bush hates black people and so do all the Republicans."
I didn't say that. Since we don't know each other, let me go ahead and explain that I was born in and have lived my entire life in the south. I know full well that all the Republicans down here are not hardcore racists. I also know full well, however, that all the hardcore racists down here vote Republican.
Why is Mars also getting warmer?
Why is Uranus getting colder? How 'bout coming up with a question that's remotely relevant and then get back to me.
Unlurking to defend Idealist: "yoghurt" is an acceptable spelling. Largely British/Commonwealth, I think.
OTOH, I think Emerson and McGrattan have the right idea here, more or less. Apostropher is right that there's more to people than their politics, but that doesn't oblige us to accommodate people's politics just because of their other good qualities. And while Idealist obviously has many good qualities (and of course he shouldn't be banned), he's also made it clear that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with the Bush Administration's torturing (sometimes to death) prisoners, many of whom are innocent; at least, as per 41, that if he doesn't like torture, he hates it a bit less than he likes war. This makes him, in this respect, a bad person. I'm quite happy to apportion moral blame to him.
And if he wants to talk politics, I don't think we're obliged to engage with him on this issue. Ditto for other Republicans; I'm not saying that yinz should bring up torture when arguing with baa about libertarianism 'n'at, but I also think that the country has passed the situation where politeness requires pretending that Republicans have some sort of point, when they don't.
Of course this is not supposed to persuade Idealist or anyone else; in fact it's quite rude. If anyone can come up with a way to persuade Republicans to stop being Republicans, I will happily be polite to them as part of this plan. (For instance, I think The Poor Man has been laying it on thick with respect to John Cole.) But that would be pragmatic means to a desired end. He, and other Republicans, may be calm and rational in their views, but at this point that still doesn't mean it's worth engaging with their arguments.
he's also made it clear that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with the Bush Administration's torturing (sometimes to death) prisoners
I would be interested in knowing the basis for this assertion. It is quite false.
I don't think there's the same urgency about the average citizen's view on global warming as there is on something like the war in Iraq. The unknowns of the future are tremendous. Reducing CO2 is important in the long run but there is no direct line of correspondence about what action taken today instead of 5 years from now will produce in the future. The science just isn't there. When the scientific becomes the political as has global warming, it is turned into an absolute binary position that just isn't supported by science. When someone speaks of which side of the fence they are on about global warming, it is, usually, a cultural/polical affiliation and not the science they are speaking of.
Similarly, with evolution-creation arguments. Creationists learn their arguments from different sources, and, in the end, it's about keeping a specific belief in God and control over education or just defending a cultural affiliation. On the evolution side, I have found that most of the public who are adamant about evolution don't understand it themselves but are on the right side of the fence about science. At least where it concerns evolution. This support for science completely frays apart when it concerns issues like nature/nurture debates. Then science has no place in the debate any longer because of social/political reasons.
Shorter version, it's tough to claim scientific support for cultural or political positions.
I have two close friends who have given up a couple of friendships with republicans in recent years. I don't know what it gained them. I have family on both extreme ends of the political spectrum and I still love them. I just stay clear of extreme conversations.
I don't think it's at all productive to make enemies of half the electorate. I can still disagree vehemently with their position.
turn tail and run from Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is what I'm talking about. There is no engagement to be had here. Think of the current state of the Iraq, the casualty count on our side alone, and the number of on the ground generals that have said Iraq is a clusterfuck. And yet to Idealist, the worst thing he can imagine Bush doing is pulling us out of there. There is not, and never will be, any option we can sanely offer to get a vote from these people. Political outreach to this faction is a waste of time.
46: Actually I think that link is more relevant than you realize. It focuses entirely on comparing funding under Bush to funding under Clinton. Who cares? Did we have two major wars going on under Clinton? Is Clinton = the Demoratic party? It completely deflects the question of what Bush is or isn't doing into "I know you are, but what am I?" If that's why people continue to support Bush, then I respectfully suggest that they consider that Clinton is no longer in office or eligible to run and let's talk about the actual current political situation.
Yes, under Bush, funding has increased in dollar terms. But you know perfectly well that simple numbers don't account for inflation or the massive increase in need. Per capita funding for veterans' medical care is well behind per capita funding for Medicare. The administration proposed a flat-line budget for VA medical care that it admitted itself would eventually elminate over a million vets from the system. Mental health care for veterans desperately needs increased funding: PTSD is always an issue, but it's on the rise because of the long-term deployments and reliance on Guard troops as compared to previous wars. The Administration proposed cutting long-term care funding: but current warfare and medical realities mean that people who would have died in past wars will now live, but will require long-term care.
Total side-line, but I find it suggestive: one of the reasons that Mr. B.'s job negotiations have been up and down for four months is because at the end of spring, the govt. agency that does clearances for private contractors ran out of money and simply shut down. The need for clearances is up (obvs.), and yet funding hasn't been increased to keep up with that. Congress ended up appropriating extra funding after about a month, but what kind of shameful bullshit is that?
I don't support the Iraq war, as you know. But. If you're going to have a war, you need to provide funds, personnel and materiel to support it. Trying to do it on the cheap while cutting taxes (unconscionable, really) is the mark of an administration that is completely not serious about its defense role, and all the saber-rattling and rhetoric in the world doesn't change that.
Reducing CO2 is important in the long run
This is a wholly different position from "global warming is bullshit."
I don't think it's at all productive to make enemies of half the electorate.
It's not half, it's more like a third. Which is still not to say people have to shun family members, etc. But in the political arena, we need to stangle the fundies with the guts of the neocons.
60: You still support him as long as he pursues the war in Iraq. At the least, you think the torture is outweighed by other factors. That's the burden of the Poor Man link; if you do oppose torture, you ought to be doing something about it, and it has to start with opposing the Republicans.
I'm going back to lurking now (for time reasons).
61 drives me nuts. Global warming is real, but there's no proof that addressing it now rather than five years from now (and then we'll say, how about five more years, and so on) will make much difference?
1. The problems of atmospheric changes are exponential.
2. If something is a known problem, addressing it now ensures that it will be addressed. Putting it off does not.
Weiner in 59 and Kostko in 55 both have it right, imho.
I should stress that I don't think all conservative positions, in general, are morally indefensible or subject to moral condemnation.
People can have moral defensible reasons for believing that smaller government is good, that the tax burden is too high, that we ought to be respectful of some traditional values or be less interventionist with respect to foreign policy, to take some examples. I may strongly disagree with these beliefs but I don't think they're necessarily* subject to moral condemnation.
Support, on the other hand, for the current policy positions and actions of the Republican party in the US, or for many of the policy positions and actions of New Labour in the UK, on the other hand, is, in my view, morally indefensible and we should not shy away from expressing that.
* They may be, of course, in some formulations. But they needn't be.
On pulling out of Iraq: I, personally, very much fear that we have fucked things up over there to the point where our continued presence, no matter how well-executed, is just further inflammation. (And from a selfish point of view, just creates more incentive for terrorism.)
However. I am not entirely comfortable with the cut-and-run argument, and in fact am, again personally, quite willing to support the original Colin Powell "you broke it you own it" argument. But only if we commit sufficient resources and manpower, including serious strategic and diplomatic thinking, to the situation. Which so far we obviously have not done. War is serious business. If you pursue it in a half-assed "we'll be greeted as liberators, so there's no need to plan for worst-case scenarios" way, then it is morally as well as pragmatically wrong, wrong, wrong to use that power.
to Idealist, the worst thing he can imagine Bush doing is pulling us out of there
Sorry. I thought your question was what would Bush have to do to get you to reconsider that vote in 2004 not the worst thing he can imagine Bush doing.
Is immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan the official position of the Democratic Party? Whatever you might think of going into either of those countries in the first place, do you now think that immediate withdrawal is the best policy--either in the short run or in the long run? Why?
At the least, you think the torture is outweighed by other factors.
I will accept this as a concession that your prior claim regarding my support for torture was a lie. Now, what is the basis for the statement I have quoted above. Please, when you are back from lurking, give me links to the comments where I said that I thought that torture was OK.
71: That the Iraq debacle was executed poorly may be true, but it's completely beside the point. It's like Ted Bundy apologizing for using a knife with a dull blade.
#72
The problems with Iraq never had a military solution that didn't involve either deploying about three times the number troops we actually have, or wading in Iraqi blood until they decided anything was better than fighting back.
We're breaking the military on a mission whose stated goal is out of our reach. We're leaving there one way or another, and Iraq is and is going to continue to sort out its own issues in a rather brutal fashion. It's now a matter what is going to be the cost in lives and dollars, and to what extent are we going to decimate our armed forces in the process.
Idealist's answer to "What Bush would have to do to lose my support?" seems to make talking to him pointless. Only if the Democrats out-hawk Bush will he support them.
There are a whole range of areas where Bush's policies are appalling, and hypothetical dovishness on his part is the only one which might make a difference. There's nothing to work with.
"Why is Uranus getting colder?"
Must be all the cold showers.
That might actually be funny if I could have provided a link. How come "shocked delight" didn't work?
Increasingly it seems that all possible favorable outcomes in Iraq are impossible. If the US were to devote itself to a ten-year war of attrition there while the rest of the world takes care of itself, we probably could pacify the place. But in order to that we'd rally have to militarize the country and suppress all dissent. ("We" = "they").
"All imaginable favorable outcomes are impossible"?
seems to make talking to him pointless.
Um, it makes trying to convince him to vote Democratic pointless. But then, I don't bother to try any more than he tries to convince me to vote Republican. Nonetheless, I enjoy talking to him, especially given that more of the threads here are not about politics than are. And my enjoyment is point enough for me. Your mileage may vary.
Only if the Democrats out-hawk Bush will he support them.
Reading, it appears, truly is a lost art. There are a number of things that Democrats could do to make me support them. That was not the question posed.
Adam, It means I'm spot on about the hypocricy of the left and by all means I would encourage you to keep expressing your hatred of total strangers based on the fact that they don't perceive the world exactly like you. In fact, I would encourage the left as a whole to adopt hatred, demonizing, dehumanizing and elimination of all conservative political thought on the basis that political views can be dangerous things and must be tightly controlled in a free society. Do I get to wear a star on my chest that identifies me as dangerously naive or outright malicious in Adamatopia? Figure out your final solution for the hopelessly lost base and keep doing so in these public forums.
The thing is, this progressive evangelicalism is not an eternal phenomenon and the more you play with it the quicker the toy will break and you'll be crying again. So, regale us with stories about the morality of the left and its origins. Who obligates you to behave morally, Adam? Do tell.
Finish your sentence, please:
"Republican policies are immoral because...."
There are a number of things that Democrats could do to make me support them.
Given that Bush's stewardship of foreign policy, domestic policy, the budget, etc. has not been enough to make you regret that Bush vote, it's a bit difficult for many of us to imagine what the Democrats could do to gain your support.
Again, apostropher gets it exactly right.
There are a number of things that Democrats could do to make me support them.
Apparently "not torturing people" isn't one of them.
Can we all just calm down a little?
You're right. Sorry.
74 is so right.
69 is a the sort of cluelessness that drives me nuts.
Do I get to wear a star on my chest that identifies me as dangerously naive or outright malicious in Adamatopia? Figure out your final solution for the hopelessly lost base and keep doing so in these public forums.
And what fundie screwball would be complete without a severe persecution complex?
Convincing anyone who hasn't done so before now to vote Democrat in 2006 or beyond is a little like asking a kid to trade his triple-scoop of Cotton Candy Explosion for crap on a stick complete with earwax sprinkles.
I hope someone is at least paying to you do it.
Idealist, when asked for something that would make you reconsider your 2004 vote, the one thing you selected for mention ("turn tail and run from Iraq and Afghanistan") didn't give us anything to work with. Few Democrats believe that Bush will lose his hawkishness, but if he did, we'd think of it as a limited good. I take "turn tail and run" as a Republican smear about Democrats. I do not actually advocate "turning tail and running", but I'm sure that that's what you'd call what I do advocate. (Likewise, you do not think of yourself as giving blind support to a demented incompetent, but there are those......)
gswift, I understand why you see it that way. Since you filtered out what I was responding to, that's the way you should respond.
Adam stated outright that conservative thought was dangerous and not party to the diversity club.
Idealist, there should be some moral outrage at the loss of civilian life, the chaotic condition of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the squandering of opportunity in using the full force of US power. It is enough to wish that Bush could have done it differently. Better. No?
Convincing anyone who hasn't done so before now to vote Democrat in 2006 or beyond is a little like asking a kid to trade his triple-scoop of Cotton Candy Explosion for crap on a stick complete with earwax sprinkles.
Trying to lighten the mood, let me say with all good humor and respect to w3, that that is a truly amazing sentence, even by my astonishingly low rhetorical standards. Further, I am left unsure of whether the earwax sprinkles are supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing. How about if we marinate them in yogurt?
I do not actually advocate "turning tail and running", but I'm sure that that's what you'd call what I do advocate.
Tell me what you advocate and we can find out.
RWR and I
Well that's your problem right there. Of course Ronald Reagan's gonna be a die-hard Republican...
didn't give us anything to work with
In terms of making me vote for a Democratic candidate? I could tell you some of the things which might, but it likely would start a side argument over whether the Democratic Party already has done at least some of the things I see it as not doing.
Indeed, this morning on the way in to work I was thinking about how I used to view myself as a liberal (a long time ago, when you and I were young), but how, in so many ways, what that means has changed. Frankly, it is not I who has changed as much as it is the Democratic Party.
Instead, can I say that, for example, if the 2008 election were between Hilary Clinton and Bill Frist, and I was forced to vote, I would vote for Clinton (notwithstanding that there are issues on which I side with Frist rather than Clinton).
Between Clinton and Frist I'd choose Harry Browne. A deceased libertarian would be a far superior choice than either of those two.
The GOP could also screw up and put Rudy "Mom Shouldn't have Let Dad Have the Car to Hire a Hooker, So Screw Her Property Rights" Guiliani on the ballot, but that still wouldn't make me so insanely angry as to vote Clinton.
Also, w3, anybody who would base their vote upon what a dozen people who they have never met, and aren't running for nor ever held office, say in a blog comment thread isn't serious enough to bother convincing anyhow. Your faith in our powers is charming, but misplaced.
I'm spot on about the hypocricy of the left
If you can't spell it, you probably aren't spot on about it.
Back to the bad people theme, let's say for the sake of argument that I've decided Idealist and baa are intrinsically bad people. I can't fine them or exact any tribute, and I seriously doubt my stern and earnest (stearnest?) disapproval would be particularly troubling to either of them. So, really, what's the point?
apostropher, I sure didn't mean to imply that you only have 11 virtual friends you may or may not have met and I hope you aren't implying that is the case.
I meant friends in a metaphysical sense. Brothers, Friends, Comrades in Your Blind Faith to Hating All Things Bush and/or Conservative.
This thread was started by Becks as an invitation to pat her on the back for being patient with her retarded friends... oops, I mean conservative friends. Isn't she wonderful for tolerating these people, regardless of their intellectual handicaps? It has since evolved into a discussion of how, exactly, one goes about persuading a blind follower to change his course.
That its participants are also blind followers of a faith of another kind is an irony lost on only a dozen or so people in this blog.
Reading comprehension isn't a strong point for you either, I see.
We deny the symmetry, w3. Sometimes one side is nuts and the other side isn't. We're saying that this is one of those times.
"We" means me and whoever agrees with me. Not "everyone at unfogged" or "The Unfogged Collective".
103 - If you think we have any idea where these threads are going to go when we start them, you haven't been around here very long.
w3, I admit that there has been some mutual testiness between people with different views on this thread, and I have been guilty of participating in some of it, but really, 103 is a bit much. Be nice and engage, and the vast majority of the people here will be nice and engage back. I comment here for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that more than all of the other blogs which have comments that I have looked at, people will be (more or less, usually) reasonable to you if you are (more or less, usually) reasonable to them.
apostropher, oh really? My spelling error means I don't know what hypocricy is? And I'm going to keep misspelling it just to irk you.
Would you like to flesh out the logic in that? Logically prove that a misspelling in a blog comment would lead one to conclude that the misspeller's logical point should be completely disregarded? Or is that what we call Changing The Subject?
And Becks, dear dear Becks... you strike me as just the kind of elitist that has had plenty of spit inserted into her waffles. Treat the waitress with respect, dear. She works harder than you, does more with less than you, and puts up with your bizarre insistence that the order be done over because the butter is CLEARLY not on the side.
And 109 provides excellent support for 105.
John,
Both sides are nuts. Denial of a thing does not disprove is existence.
Of course, assertion of a thing doesn't prove it either ;-)
Passive ad hominem attack from apostropher? I'd be shocked if that wasn't the entire point of my first comment.
Some more syrup, please? When you can, I know you're busy. Thank you.
Condensed version, take one, aaaand action!
w3: Democrats think everybody is stupid.
[string of random, stupid comments]
Unfogged: Well, that certainly was a string of random, stupid comments.
w3: See? I was RIGHT! Bwahahahaha!
I'm sure that's exactly how you see it, apostropher. There is no doubt on my mind on that score.
But if we could get back to your point before you devolved into belittling, degrading and bullying people into thinking like you or else the belittling, degrading and bullying will continue that the left has not devolved into the party of bullies, belittlers and demeaners, that would help the conversation move along a little.
Or is that "demeanors?"
apostropher, SPELL CHECK!
Changing The Subject™ : The new game that challenges you to throw your friends off topic! Get them to go down a tangent before the timer runs out and win! Fun for the whole family, ages 6 to adult.
plenty of spit inserted into her waffles
"Insert"? I'm picturing a big turkey baster sitting on a shelf in the back that's pre-filled with spit and labeled as such.
You brought waffles and you're eating them yourself? That's so wrong.
Seriously, W., what's your goal from this conversation? To bore and annoy? You're doing good. To convince anyone of anything? Less so.
If you're proselytizing, you need to be clearer about what you'd like to convince us of, and why we should be convinced. If your goal is to irritate us, then you're doing fine, but doesn't it get kind of dull for you too?
74: It's beside the point to me. It's not beside the point to people who support(ed) the war. That was the position I was addressing.
73: I will accept this as a concession that your prior claim regarding my support for torture was a lie.
With respect, Idealist, I have been really trying of late to get along with you better--but this kind of unnecessarily hostiile and insulting response to Matt's 68 is, well, unnecessary, hostile, and insulting. You seem to be very bad at telling the difference between people attacking your ideas and people attacking you, and equally bad at keeping your cool in these arguments. Which is uncool.
before you devolved into belittling, degrading and bullying
Just treating your arguments with the seriousness they deserve, dear. By the way, you've now moved out of waffle territory into cake. Giant, exquisitely moist cake.
Okay not the visual I was trying to communicate, but it'll work. Straight from the mouth to the table was more what I had in mind.
You seem to be very bad at telling the difference between people attacking your ideas and people attacking you, and equally bad at keeping your cool in these arguments.
In what universe is saying that I support torturing people not a personal insult. If I said that you think it was a good thing that young children were raped and killed, would you think it was an attack on your ideas for you to assess dispassionately rather than an attack on you?
122: We've been down this road before, B. I don't recall that journey being productive, either.
119 posted before I saw 87.
88: Yamamoto, do you actually have anything to say about my comment, or do you think it's sufficient just to make a snarky accusation of cluelessness with no explanation?
w3 is an ass, and I am increasingly becoming irritated and rather sad that this kind of stupid snotty insulting substanceless rhetoric (88 included, 73 and 81 excluded on the strength of 119) is happening in the bar I go to to joke around with and rigorously, even heatedly discuss things with hyperintelligent people who know how to distinguish between actual argument and ad-hominem sideswipes. When did the latter become tolerable here?
Seriously, why are we engaging someone who starts out saying something this foolish, pointless, and ironically self-indicting?
I encourage those in this thread, especially activists for the DNC, to continue this line of belittling and bullying
lizard, is that like, irony, when you're like, comedic in a question you begin with "Seriously,"?
Guffaw.
Like, seriously. My point is that the left has devolved into a chorus that serves to uplift its members through the belittling, bullying and demeaning of those who don't perceive the world as they do, and while I have been unable to persuade anyone here of this undeniable fact and haven't provided much proof of said theory, this thread can serve as a publicly available record that, in fact, the left has devolved into a chorus that serves to uplift its member through the belittling, bullying and demeaning of those who don't perceive the world as they do.
I didn't plan for Becks to insult all waitresses, but I should have predicted it.
apostropher, bitchpd misspelled a word. Just letting you know.
125: What else do you do? I can't blame Labs for attracting them, given that I did it first.
bitchphd. "w3 is an ass... people who know how to distinguish between actual argument and ad-hominem sideswipes. When did the latter become tolerable here?"
Is that a request for clarification or the ad hominem attack you say is not tolerable here?
122: The point is, you called Matt a liar after he clarified what he was saying in a way that specifically did not accuse you of being pro-torture. You even cited that clarification in the same post you called him a liar. I may be capable of being as bitchy as the next guy, but I don't flat-out call people liars while quoting the passages where they clarify the very thing I'm objecting to.
Anyway, I'm being an ass now, as apo is trying to point out, by belaboring the point. As I said, I posted that comment before I had caught up on the whole thread.
that serves to uplift its member
See, now cock jokes will earn you points here. Keep trying that approach and everybody will warm right up.
bitchpd misspelled a word
bitchphd
The point is, you called Matt a liar after he clarified what he was saying in a way that specifically did not accuse you of being pro-torture.
Suffice it to say that we interpreted his comment quite differently.
and 122:
Ideal-- The problem is, insofar as I understand your views on torture, that the disagreement is one on matters of fact. To the extent that I've talked to you about this more than other people at Unfogged, I believe that you think, mostly, that the really bad stuff (beating prisoners to death) wasn't authorized, so there's no real reason to talk about it as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of military discipline for the people who did it; and that the stuff that was inarguably policy was also inarguably not torture.
This is not an obvious or transparent position; to someone who doesn't share your evaluation of the facts, it's not unreasonable to think that the reason that torture hasn't driven you out of the Republican party is that although you believe the administration engages in it as a matter of policy, you don't think that's a big deal. There are plenty of people who are unashamed of holding exactly those views.
While I can see being insulted by having those views attributed to you, it might be easier to get through conversations if, rather than being too insulted to engage, you'd explain why Administration policies on torture haven't driven you out of the Republican party (if I understand you correctly, it's because you don't think that such objectionable policies exist.)
Idealist, you should call it hyperbole and treat it as such. Of course, you insist on engaging in debate on a site that claims it serves the purpose of cutting through rhetoric while serving up the most rhetoric I've seen in a single thread, let alone an entire blog.
127: I dunno. At my place, I ban 'em. That's not the policy here. On the other hand, the mockery and/or ignoring strategies, depending on our collective and individual moods, has seemed to work pretty well. What doesn't work, I think, is rising to the bait and trying to engage. Waste of time, and if anything it just encourages pains-in-the-ass to stick around and see how long they can keep up their little games.
130, you have cock on the brain, not that there's anything wrong with that.
But if you really have more than one uplifted member, I will gladly pay the full admission price to see it when Jim Rose comes back in town. Keep me posted on the tour dates.
131: Okay. I really don't want to argue about it. It just makes me variously angry and/or sad that the atmosphere here has degraded to the point where vigorous argument gets taken personally. The place is a lot less fun and congenial than it used to be, and it's a damn shame.
124: I just don't know where to start with someone who describes "problems" as exponential. Do you mean that CO2 increase since 1950 is exponential or that temperature rise is exponential or something else? Basically, the difference between not doing anything and doing something about CO2 per Kyoto protocols is the difference of global warming to a dangerous point over the next 105 vs the next 100 years. And that's excluding all externalities and counterfactuals. Science, at this point, has much more to say about what is actually occurring than it is predictive of what will happen if we do x, y, or z. There are no controls, no test cases, no lab experiments. There is just hopeful speculation. As it seems wiser to do something rather than nothing, my vote is in favor of doing something, but I simply cannot muster the supreme confidence of belittling those who disagree with me on that issue. I don't know how much difference it will make in the long run, given that we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway, and given that any decrease in CO2 production is going to be incrementally small and has as its goal a stabilization of atmospheric CO2 levels, not a decrease in global temperatures.
While I can see being insulted by having those views attributed to you, it might be easier to get through conversations if, rather than being too insulted to engage, you'd explain why Administration policies on torture haven't driven you out of the Republican party
You demand a level of perfection which I cannot acheive (and to which you do not hold yourself or anyone else). Accusing me of thinking that torturing people is a good thing is a "headbutt-able" insult. You want me to say "Oh, gee, I'm sorry. I know you just called me a vile motherfucker, I must have failed fully to have appriased you of my views. Please forgive me for failing to have made clear how I am not a vile motherfucker. Once I explain, I am sure you will understand. Please excuse my failure to have made this clear." Maybe, but I am a simple, uneducated person who follows a simpler path: Fuck me? Fuck you!
You seem to be very bad at telling the difference between people attacking your ideas and people attacking you
It seems to me, and I may well be wrong, that Matt did attack him personally, that he impugned his character. It also seems to me that Matt was right to do so.
129: I'm an ass, she's an ass, he's an ass, we're all ass...es
Wouldn't you like to be an a-ass, too? Be an ass, an impatient ass. Be an ass, an immediate gratification, I told you what I want now ban her ass.
You can have it back, bitch. Don't take your ball and go home.
137: What I mean is that the greenhouse gas concentrations have increased exponentially in the last 50-odd years, and that the problem feeds on itself: as things warm, there's a greater demand for fossil fuel energy to combat the warming; as sea temperatures rise, ice shelfs melt, which contributes to even more rising temperatures, and so on.
You could ask, you know, instead of just being rude. It's called assuming that the people who hang out here are highly intelligent, which has historically been the case.
138: I'm not so much asking you not to be insulted, as not to be too insulted to engage. That is, a response along the lines of "Fuck you, fucker, I don't support torture. The reason that I'm still voting Republican is that I don't think the administration does either" (and going on to lay out your reasons for that latter if you want to) can be as hostile as you like, but it doesn't shut stuff down the way the 'too insulted to continue the discussion' response does.
I would just like to clarify that I was not attacking the Platonic form of conservatism as immoral, just what concretely goes under the name of conservatism in the present situation. I'm sure that in some alternate universe, there could possibly be Republicans who would be outraged by Bush and the current congressional leadership, and who would actually be in power rather than being a token "reasonable conservative" on the Internet. In actual reality, though, to support the Republican party right now is objectively to support evil.
you have cock on the brain
It's our raison d'etre, dear.
Likewise, bphd. A post that begins with "61 drives me nuts" does not invite discussion.
138: No. Honestly, it seems to me that if Matt says, "Idealist supports torture" (I cannot be bothered to scroll back up and see what he actually said, so feel free to make silent corrections as you read), it's fairly clear to everyone who has read the discussions here that what he is saying is that "Idealist supports the administration's treatment of prisoners." Matt thinks that the administration's treatment of prisoners = torture (and fwiw, I believe that this is an established fact). Idealist believes that this is *not* an established fact; he buys the "few bad apples" theory.
So I don't see why you, Idealist, have to get upset at being accused of a position you don't support simply because Matt is using a form of verbal shorthand. It's not that hard to say "no, I don't; I don't think the administration's policy is to torture prisoners"--in other words to point out the buried premise in the rhetorical shortcut.
Now, maybe you really truly don't see that what Matt said is a rhetorical shortcut that contains a buried premise. I don't think it's that hard to see, unless one is feeling unnecessarily defensive and therefore reading quickly (which god knows I do sometimes too). But he clarified it. And then you still insisted on seeing it as a personal insult.
I think it's uncongenial. And I'm completely aware of how ironic it is to use that word in the context of a discussion on torture here, and maybe I am just flat-out wrong that what Matt said was as clear as I read it to be.
FWIW I honestly do not think that my reading it that way has to do with the fact that Matt and I are political allies on the torture issue. I've had people accuse me (here and elsewhere), for instance, of thinking that "men don't get to have opinions on the question of abortion." That isn't what I think, but I understand where the mistake comes from, and when such an accusation comes up, I address the mistake rather than (or in addition to, at least) getting my panties in a twist over it.
All the Europeans who think we should be loudly proclaiming that Republicans are immoral are cordially invited to come over here and do it themselves.
"I'm sure that in some alternate universe, there could possibly be Republicans who would be outraged by Bush and the current congressional leadership, and who would actually be in power rather than being a token "reasonable conservative" on the Internet."
I suspect, or maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I suspect that there is a split afoot between the traditionalists and the modern Bush republicans.
Likewise, bphd. A post that begins with "61 drives me nuts" does not invite discussion.
But, you know, it does. She didn't say "It drives me nuts, you're such a moron" and leave it at that, she said "It drives me nuts" and then went on to substantive disagreement.
This isn't meant to be a polite place. If your response to someone being rude to you is to abandon the conversation and just start sniping, you're missing the point, and you're not going to make the place more interesting. If someone snipes at you, for heaven's sake snipe back, but keep talking about the subject at issue.
(and I should say that I've been surprised and pleased by the fact that you've been hanging around and been reasonably interesting. When you first showed up, I thought you were just here to pick fights, like W here, and I now think I was wrong about that.)
Everybody is so testy today. Almost like Mercury was in retrograde or something. Oh look, it is (there, now you can all make fun of me instead).
So, can we please go back to baiting the troll now? I was kind of enjoying it.
re: 143 seems right to me.
That was the point of my 70.
I'm not describing conservatism per se as everywhere and always immoral. However, the current strand, as embodied in the governments actually in power in the US and the UK*, without question, is.
Furthermore, it seems to me that conservatives, if they were genuinely being consistent with the policy objectives they've traditionally expressed** would also be deeply opposed to the current administration.
* The situation in the UK is more complex because the Labour party is only similar to the current Republican party in some policy arenas and really very different in others.
** Views with which I am in disagreement but which seem profoundly different from the current strand in actual power.
143: In actual reality, though, to support the Republican party right now is objectively to support evil.
Now what was that point I made about the left resorting to bullying and belittling in lieu of argumentation or persuasion? I must be imagining that Adam is saying support of the Republican party is support of evil, and I must be imagining that such an unsupported assertion is anything other than an attempt o bully someone into a corner in hopes of elicting a response like, "I don't want to be evillllll... help me!!!! Change me, Adam! Make me not republican so I can be not evil just like you."
I agree with 151, but what's the point of all this? You said above that you don't think we should stop associating with Republicans or anything, so what do you expect us to do that we aren't already doing?
145, see 142. In addition to what you cite, I actually did engage in discussion. That's very different than *just* being dismissive, and that distinction is one that I think we've always recognized and honored here.
151: I'm not describing conservatism per se as everywhere and always immoral. However, the current strand, as embodied in the governments actually in power in the US and the UK*, without question, is.
Me and my silly imagination playing tricks on me. Again. I do apologize for accusing those on the left of resorting to bullying and belittling instead of using logic.
149: But, you know, it does. She didn't say "It drives me nuts, you're such a moron" and leave it at that, she said "It drives me nuts" and then went on to substantive disagreement.
Exactly. Say you're 3 and not getting your shoes on fast enough and mom sighs in her exasperated way and puts them on for you, she's not communicating to you that you're dumb and she's smarter. So don't take it so personally. Just keep engaging in the conversation as though bitchphd didn't mean to imply that you're as thick as a stack of waffles.
"You're a moron, and here's why" isn't personal and bitchphd doesn't reveal more about her own desire to deal only with those who agree with her right away. Nothing to see here.
You know who else is evil and immoral? Tim McCarver. I imagine that he probably supports torture.
Shorter 154: See LB's 149.
Really, I think that the ability to grasp 149 is the essence of Unfogged. Call me uncongenial, but I say anyone who can't get that shouldn't be encouraged to stick around.
unnecessarily defensive
Maybe. Understandably defensive, I would say, but I get that there is a difference between a reason and an excuse.
I do not read either of Matt's comments the way you do. I accept your point that, just as it is possible that you may be flat-out wrong, maybe I was instead. All I can say is that I did not, and on re-reading, do not see it that way.
I accept, of course, your and LB's point that it is better to deal with your opponent's misapprehension than to get all huffy and stop the discussion. Again, we have a different view of the facts. I continued to answer questions regarding my views. I apologized for my tone getting intemperate. In light of that, I am not sure that your criticism is well based. But since I am, by this point, quite pissed off, I certainly could be seeing things less than objectively.
W3, it's just you. We believe that you would not be good for the Democrats, and we're trying to keep you away. Because you seem to be right on the verge of joining us, really very eager to do so, but we'd rather have you remain on the other side of the line.
Look up "concern troll" in your dictionary. We have a special file for helpful advice which comes to us from our opponents.
Tis is not a thread intended to proselytize undecided people. We're talking mostly to each other about the usefulness of trying to communicate with people who remain loyal Republicans at this point.
151: I agree, but I think 153 misses the point, kind of. I mean, it's true that 151 is by now well-established, but not everything one says has to have a point, does it?
re: 153
Well, I think it makes sense to acknowledge that our opponents are supporting an immoral policy agenda. As other commentators have said, concentrating on issues of competence, for example, miss the point.
Targetting that policy agenda and its moral bankrupcty is important and is something we can actually do.
That doesn't have to mean not associating with people who support that policy agenda but it does mean being honest about what that agenda involves and the ways in which it is morally suspect.
There's way way too many attempts at conciliation on the part of the left and centre and, if it was up to me, we'd give up on that conciliatory approach and concentrate on opposition. Real opposition.
That is distinct from chucking about insults willy-nilly at the immediate and personal level which is obviously counterproductive, though.
I apologized for my tone getting intemperate. In light of that, I am not sure that your criticism is well based.
Agreed. I did say way upthread that I was being an ass and knew it. Letting stuff go isn't my strong suit.
Nonetheless, I'm sorry that continuing to talk about it pissed you off.
By the way, Miss Emily, you got a bit ignored above, due to the number of spats ricocheting around the thread. Do remain delurked, hopefully on a slightly less cranky thread.
Say you're 3 and not getting your shoes on fast enough and mom sighs in her exasperated way and puts them on for you, she's not communicating to you that you're dumb and she's smarter.
Exactly right! She's communicating that she is impatient and has better motor coordination than you do. Well done, W3, there may be hope for you yet.
I always engage immediately on substantive disagreement. I hesitate in a big way when there is some scientific ignorance that demonstrates there is no real meeting of minds here. (nothing to do with intelligence, just background)
Letting stuff go isn't my strong suit.
Gee, I'm glad I'm not like that.
Miss Emily's actually been around for a while, LB.
Reading through the entire comment string has caused me to wonder whether or not those who have been tied up in the entire discussion (BitchPhD, w3, Yamamoto, Idealist, Astropher, John Emerson, etc) have become embedded in a situation where they can't see the wood for the trees.
I generally identify with the left, but would like to let w3 know that perhaps, just perhaps, there are a few people who appreciate the irony mentioned in #103 and who aren't the sort to push such irony aside labelled as meaningless.
Yes, those involved in the discussion all appear to be intelligent, fairly well-read individuals. Who have, from about #120 onwards, become so close to the discussion that they are merely defending their beliefs against misconstrusion and taking metaphorical stabs at one another rather than making any form of constructive contribution.
I find it interesting that this sort of thing is obvious once the entire thread is read through, but if one is merely following (lurking?) discussion as each comment is put up its impossible to discern.
167: If someone doesn't seem to understand something you do, you can always explain, you know. If you can't be bothered and don't wish to engage, then don't; don't snark instead. Snarking at people who are otherwise intelligent but simply don't have your expertise in X subject is supercilious and rude.
There are no controls, no test cases, no lab experiments.
In the fossil record, rapid climate change is typically accompanied by mass extinctions. Just saying.
Oh noes! Miss M thinks we're not constructively contributing to . . . something!
Miss M, please do inform us what our mission here is supposed to be.
161: "Tis is not a thread intended to proselytize undecided people."
Strawman, John. I, in fact, argued the point that this thread serves as further proof that liberals quickly resort to bullying and belittling others into a rhetorical corner. So thank you for agreeing with me that this thread does not serve to convert the undecided.
The purpose of this thread is exactly what I said it is: a pat on the back for Becks and her tolerance for dumb people. It serves the dual purpose of making fun of republicans and reflecting the elitism of the left that is made perfect through your continued posting.
they can't see the wood
Hey, are you attacking my virility?
Ultimately, it all comes back to cock jokes, doesn't it.
Yes, those involved in the discussion all appear to be intelligent, fairly well-read individuals.
<snark>
Gee, thanks.
</snark>
It's late and I should be in bed, but "the elitism of the left" is wrong and infuriating on so many levels.
Ultimately, 177 ends up confirming my point. If you're all just going to snark at each other, then there is no pleasure to be gained from having any form of discussion with republicans. Becks said at some point she only managed it since they were all able to keep their humour quite adequately. That's either lost here, or I'm missing a helluvalot.
Oh now, Matt. You're only infuriated because you're such an elitist that you don't like it when the little people comment on your droit de seigneur.
178 - true with the elitism, in short its all frustrating
This is a blog. It is not dinner with friends. People who walk past your table when you are having dinner with friends--even a dinner that involves a spirited argument--and say things like "you're doing this all wrong" are likely to annoy everyone at the table.
Also you'll notice that despite the spirited argument, the actual friends here who are politically opposed mostly managed to work back round to being friends again. Funny, that.
But thanks for butting into our conversation to point out that it doesn't seem like a very nice one to you.
Becks and her tolerance for dumb people
You're the only person who has used that adjective here. Just sayin'.
re: 180
This is true. I was so annoyed I forget to tell the valet to lay out my hunting tweeds for tomorrow.
169: I know I've seen her post before, but not much, and she said she was 'delurking'.
166: Exactly right! She's communicating that she is impatient and has better motor coordination than you do. Well done, W3, there may be hope for you yet.
Leaving aside the fact that one's degree of motor coordination is improved with practice, and said mother communicates a message she may not intend to the hypothetical three year old, are you saying it is helpful in the long term to express this kind of irrational impatience on someone 24 years your junior? How much pride can one really get out of out-tying a three year old?
It's really more about the effect on the three year old than the ego of the impatient, more powerful mother.
184: I find that sort of omission so infuriating. As if you should have to tell your valet that you plan to hunt on a hunting weekend.
Really, it's so hard to get good help these days.
It's a blog, indeed, butting in is what happens. Deal.
At the risk of "hypocricy" I'll clarify - I was rather pointing out an irony I find interesting. If you don't happen to, once again deal.
183: Well, except McGrattan, but he's British and you know how they are.
186: You're right. Mothers must never expression impatience with small children. It's terribly irrational of them to have feelings, and it's going to irreperably damage the children.
Which is, of course, why all right-thinking people hand their children over to nannies. But it is so hard to find good ones--they just teach the children such low habits.
185: No, actually, she didn't. Somehow I attributed a post of Weiner's above to Miss Emily. Never mind.
Crap. "Expression" s/b "express," obviously.
10, apostropher. You really should learn to own your words. Or remember them at least.
Really, w3, we've been very patient, but it's time to shit or get off the pot. Cock jokes or cake. Get with the program.
re: 189
It's all sodomy, alcoholism and intellectual snobbery, as far as the eye can see.
188: I knew you were here to tell us how we should run the place. Do continue to help us improve things around here, Miss M. It's all become so messy. I believe there is a mop and bucket downstairs in the pantry.
195: Damn you for mentioning alcoholism, Matt. Now I am reminded that we are out of beer.
W3, Miss M, would one of you mind stepping down to the shop and picking up some beer? There's a dear.
I'm not sure what it implies, but Miss M also prefers "yoghurt".
Also, I am impeccably Becks-style.
I thought, bphd, that we had a decent discussion the other night (profanity is not just mad-dogging, it can be a way of interrogating boundaries) and I really dislike beginning evey new conversation at square one. I realize that a claim to expertise comes with some responsibility and I'm often too lazy and impatient, but mostly lazy, to live up to that. But, really, I gave a lovely response at 137 and was treated to two lectures on how to be really nice from 2 people on a blog that isn't always so nice so I must be able to deal with that. WTF?
190, strawman. The logical fallacy hits just keep on coming. I never said a mother should never express impatience to their child and yet here you are setting up the strawman and plying him with wine. If you guys get romantic, can you take it to another thread? No matter how many times I see it, I just can't stomach human/scarecrow relations. Nevermind, I can avert my eyes. It's your blog after all.
Back to the subject... looking through the eyes of the three year old whose mother insists on denying him the practice he needs to get his shoes on by himself, it does not serve communication to start off with: "you're stupid, here's why, what are your thoughts?"
Well, W3, I certainly didn't pat Becks on the back. I immediately disagreed with her whole concept. Unfogged does have a tradition of trying to engage Republicans in argument, but I personally have no such tradition, and think that the Unfogged tradition is unproductive and pointless.
I don't remember saying anything about dumb people. What I seem to see is a kind of self-serving denial and refusal to engage reality. I do find this culpable.
For example, this administration may be the most fiscalkly irresponsible in American history, and it's riddled with graft. But people who call themselves conservatives will support Bush because he's a Republican, and talk endlessly about Democratic graft from the Fifties and Sixties.
On civil liberties and separation-of-powers issues, this is also one of the worst Presidents ever, and I believe that his legal honchos are resurrecting and juicing up the old theories of all the earlier Presidents who were especially bad in this regard (and yes, some of them were Democrats).
But most of the self-professed conservatives who were enraged by Clinton's offenses in this regard (the black helicopter people -- and yes, Clinton did offend on these issues) are turning a blind eye to Bush's much greater offenses. (And no, I don't think the war justifies Bush, but in any case, this war is an endless, unwinnable war against a non-specific enemy, and few of Bush's power grabs are conditional on it being wartime, and furthermore few have sunset provisions of any kind).
Those are just two examples. Add stem cells, global warming and the environment in general, Bush's botched war in Iraq, the trial balloons for more wars, backloaded tax breaks which will lead to fiscal crises down the road, his dishonest and destructive social security proposals, his weakening of business regulation, consumer protections, and labor law -- there are a multitude of issues.
And some of them are issues where conservatives disagree (and thus cannot be reasoned with, but only can be defeated at the polls), but the real killer is that too many conservatives just refuse to acknowledge the facts we are facing (e.g. Bush's fiscal disaster, which is the kind of thing that conservatives used to care fiercely about).
194: I can only suggest Pilates to you, apostropher. You'll develop the flexibility you need to have your cock and eat it, too.
Also, I am impeccably Becks-style.
The Saffirio 2000 Barolo, to be specific. A gnome playing a flute on the label. Highly recommended by apostropher, if you can find it.
203: Mmm, close. It mentions cock, but fails on the joke part. Either keep trying or get busy baking, dear.
Yamamoto, when you said that a 5-year lag in the present response to global warming will only speed up the arrival of the crisis by five years, that was an unsupported assumption. When BPhd used the word "exponential" she meant that it was an accelerating process, the speed of which will increase the longer it's left undealt with, and that a 5 year delay would have more than a 5 year negative effect. I don't have data at hand, but I think that BPhd is right and you are wrong on this, questions of expertise aside. You didn't provide data either, but seemed to believe that you were stating a truism.
re: 202
On civil liberties and separation-of-powers issues , this is also one of the worst Presidents ever
It was these same issues, unfortunately, that led to my own disillusionment with the Blair government in the UK, beginning several years before the Iraq war.
The UK may actually be worse than the US in this respect.
Beyond what I've said, a significant proportion of conservatives make their political decisions primarily on Biblical grounds -- perhaps 10% of the electorate. There's no way to reach those people except by preaching from the Bible, preferably from Revelation and Leviticus.
I hate to go all Raising Arizona on you, John, but which is it, Sonny? Your very clear assertions to the contrary, your post reads like an attempt at engagement with republicans which you claim you don't do.
You want I should freeze or drop to the floor?
You want I should freeze or drop to the floor?
We want baked goods, goddammit. How many times do we have to say it?
210: The good news is you have at least 11 friends who will lie to you and tell you you're really funny.
211: It must seem strange to you, this concept of 'friends'. But you could make some if you came across with the baked goods. We don't insist on cake -- pie or cookies would work.
The good news is you have at least 11 friends who will lie to you and tell you you're really funny.
Come on, w3, enough all ready. And actually, 210 is an in-joke, and is, in context, kind of funny.
Wb3grrl, I was talking to other people on the thread who think that it's worth engaging Republicans and people who call themselves conservatives.
The key reason why it's not, is that none of them will even object when Bush flagrantly violates the most basic Republican principles. The Republican Party is now a cult of personality driven by fear and anger.
w3, please quit baiting my husband (Apo). I'm already working on bugging him myself and don't appreciate the distraction.
200: In all honesty, I think you don't "get" the vibe here, and it kinda bugs me. You've hung around long enough to have become semi-regular, which is cool, but apparently not regular enough to deal with the kind of thing LB explains in 149. And I'm growing increasingly tired of and worried about these stupid political partisan arguments--we used to have really good, thoughtful, analytical discussions of political things and there were different angles on things represented, and people did disagree. Not on dumbass partisan grounds, but on questions of nuance and importance. And I think a very big part of what has changed is that folks who don't get that kind of thinking and how it works have started showing up,* and it's making political discussions, at least, seem just like political discussions anywhere else in the stupid blogosphere, and it pisses me off. Political discussions here have always been part of a larger sense of seamless community, kind of like getting together with people who you are friends with over a few beers and arguing, albeit strenuously, over stuff.
So maybe I am excessively impatient with newbies who seem not to fit into the groove, but it seems to me your primary interest in this site is in political discussions about which "side" is right or wrong, and that's not the kind of thing that imho this place is best at, or should be doing. And the question you're asking--"we had a good discussion the other day, why are you turning on me now?"--is part of that "not getting it" vibe in my mind. Idealist and I argue like cats and dogs, and we get really mad at one another; but to his great credit, he doesn't assume that because we are friendly some times, that we won't argue at others, or that b/c we argue sometimes, that we won't be friendly five minutes later in a different thread. That's how I see people fitting in here.
All that said: this isn't my blog, at all. I feel a sense of ownership of it because it's such a tight community, and I'm very fond of the people here.
Anyway. Please everyone forgive me explaining all this: it's rather hostile and ingroupy of me, I fully realize. Yamamoto asked, and it's hot, and, well, what the hell. I figured I'd explain.
(That was really, really, funny.)
I have another "is this person too toolish to ever consider" question. He was actually pretty sweet, open, and unaffected in his message to me, so that counts in his favor. But the profile. Here's a quote:
i'm dark -- as in brooding, deep, intropective, and with an offbeat biting sense of dark and sarcastic humor. if you're looking for typical, it's two doors down and just past the hedge, sorry. if you're looking for unique, hyper-intelligent and fascinating, keep reading.
i'm exceptionally rational but with a dangerous romantic core. i am concurrently the most complex and most simple person you'll ever meet. i'm detailed, sensual, unconventional, rational, sexually open and intense, a mensan, logical -- yet entertaining. i'm also in very good shape and play volleyball regularly. you'll find me more of a homebody and not really a partier. off-beat movies are the ones i prefer. i ponder the nature of the universe and the existence of time before time existed (i.e., before the big bang), objective right and wrong, the origins of religion and peoples' reliance upon it, and, well, other stuff."
210: Actually, frozen "baked" goods would work. It's hot as hell. How about one of those delicious cherry-topped Sara Lee cheesecakes? I haven't had one of those in ages.
BPhd, to a degree it might have been me who has been driving the different attitude toward political discussion here. My perception of what's actually happening and about to happen has made it difficult to remain detached, and sometimes I just explode.
219: Yes, way too toolish. Run away! Run away!
Unless you actually like guys who aren't as smart as they think they are with chips on their shoulders.
215: Oh my. Good night, everybody.
219: No. "Mensan" means just no. (Oh, if he grew up under a rock, or something, fine, but to be bragging about in a personal ad?) You must not have sex with this man unless he is really really hot and you're just exploiting him.
tia, what's your policy on narcissism?
205: I disagree. I feel the conflation of cock and cake is moderately amusing. However, not sufficiently amusing to make up for the fact that w3 is an arrogant boob. Couldn't he be given the t/ro/ll of s/o/rr/ow treatment?
221: Possibly, but I think not. When you get all crackpotty, we all realize it's just Uncle John.
(Seriously, I don't think it's you. Maybe it's the upcoming midterms and we're all of us less patient, but it seems the entire type of discussion has changed, and one long-term regular going nutso isn't going to make that happen. Not that you're nutso.)
Or actually, Tia, maybe you could go on a date with this guy and then blog about it afterwards? Because that would be fucking hilarious.
225: I'm not in love with it, JE.
Yeah, I figured too toolish, but he was pretty nice in his message.
If you really addored narcissism, you'd be in luck.
tia, this ad sounds like: I'm a snake. If you pick me up, I'll bite you. Then I'll say "I told you I was a snake."
I'd just like to point out in this active thread that I went and commented in the RG thread on Friday, if anyone has anything to say to me. I think I don't like Montaigne.
i'm exceptionally rational but with a dangerous romantic core
Mmmmm, date rapist.
206: John, bphd used the word "exponential" and apparently she meant that an exponential increase in greenhouse gases would lead to a compounding of problems with global warming. I don't disagree with her about that so please don't drive this conversation toward a red herring.
What you seem to be getting at, though, (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is that an exponential increase in greenhouse gases leads to an exponential increase in warming or negative effects. That is called climate sensitivity and we don't have a strong handle on that. There is even less confidence about what will happen to the climate if changes to CO2 are made. I hope you can see that climate sensitivity is not a simple derivative of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Yeah, I figured too toolish, but he was pretty nice in his message.
I think it's generally hard to gauge personality over the long term from a written ad. An ad can tell you a lot of things, but it doesn't remotely provide the cascade of information -- sight, scent, conversational timing, physical cues, ease of interpersonal contact -- that you get from even a fifteen-minute interaction.
I'm neutral on this particular guy.
My investigations have revealed that w3 is probably a she whose full name is "w3bgrrl". (If I revealed my research methods, I'd have to kill you.) Her posts elsewhere are unexceptional, but we've been safe in assuming that we weren't going to convince her of anything and that she probably does not have the Democrats' best interests at heart.
addendum to 232: a really boring snake who thinks he's smarter than you.
But still. He might have put it together on a bad day.
The upside is, he can spell.
What you seem to be getting at, though, (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is that an exponential increase in greenhouse gases leads to an exponential increase in warming or negative effects. That is called climate sensitivity and we don't have a strong handle on that.
What they might be getting at is that some of the effects like reduced reflective areas in polar regions, release of methane and carbon dioxide by melting permafrost, etc. are feedback loops that fuel further climate change.
I think the important thing to recognize here is that w3 hasn't left any of the last few dozen comments, and that's a victory.
I watched an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation tonight -- in between my Saturday night theology reading sessions -- and it struck me: Man, this is a really shitty show. Why did I watch this in junior high?
Apo's getting lucky tonight!
Indeed:
I'm already working on bugging him myself and don't appreciate the distraction.
Yamamoto, I have no way of knowing what your degree of expertise is. Probably you'd be better off talking to people who can tell. What I get from you (on global warming and earlier on AIDS) is always (usually skeptical) conclusions about policy, backed by an uncheckable claim to expertise, and elaborated with technical statements that really are not appropriate here, since we're not technical people who are able to evaluate your assertions (which furthermore seem to be poorly attested and not very helpfully or clearly stated.)
On both questions, your conclusions and reasons seem at variance with those of most people in the field that we know of. Most of us here must rely on arguments from authority on technical questions, and your claims to authority are not strong enough to supersede the other authorities we've heard from.
216: In all honesty, I think you don't "get" the vibe here, and it kinda bugs me.
That is just silly. Don't let me bug you. I am interested in discussing issues on the merits and you won't find me approaching any conversation simply on partisan grounds. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? But hey, I know a moving target gets noticed, and I'm new and I've been chatty.
219: Yeah, T, no good. The only thing that's worse than dating someone who can't spell is dating one who thinks being able to spell makes him God.
OMG 240! I just watched ST:TNG today too! My downstairs neighbor rented it on Netflix and then moved away, so I watched it so I could return it for him (being the wonderful neighbor I am). I was actually fairly impressed by it. Shitty in some respects, but holding up remarkably well, I thought.
213 Of course it's an inside joke. Far be it from me to deprive the 12 apostles of Elitism their belly laugh. Someone once said it is the best medicine but I don't know if that's Biblical.
214 Thank you for letting me know that comments addressed to me, by name, may not necessarily be for me, not a republican, but on particular issues, certainly conservative. I appreciate you diminishing my confusion over whether your remarks are to me or about me.
Hey, wait a minute! This isn't one of those belittling and bullying tactics I was referring to, is it? "Be liberal or I'll confuse you with remarks addressed to you which are not actually so." Suppose I'll have to accept your silence and your wish for me not to address you. From this point. Forward. Now.
Roger that, 218.
241:
Though I comment seldomly, I do read...
OW! OW! OW!
Wd40, why do you yourself enjoy wasting your time here? You seem to think that you're winning these arguments, and you're proving to you're satisfaction that liberals are no damn good. Which you already knew, of course. Do you need to recharge your batteries occasionally by rubbing up against hateful, evil people who don't listen to you, even though you try so terribly hard to communicate with us?
I'm not really communicating now, I'm taunting for the benefit of the peanut gallery. And sorry I misspelled your name.
On both questions, your conclusions and reasons seem at variance with those of most people in the field that we know of.
Perhaps you can articulate the conclusions and reasons that you seem to attribute to me and tell me how people in the field are at variance with that. Thus far you have gotten no farther than impugning my motives or background.
I dunno, JE, we've asked that question before and never gotten a real answer beyond "I like to troll because it feels so good to find inferior life-forms to stomp on!" It only works because they disagree with us on what is happening out there in the mists of things-none-of-us-has-empirically-observed. So we come back to the feeling of superiority. I think it's a sign that they are feeling pretty embattled now that they're in a pretty small minority, and they only thrills they can get are those had by sizing someone up at a distance through their fingers and saying "I'm pinching your head!" like that Kids in the Hall sketch.
O1 and O2 observe point P. O1 reports that P=x. O2 reports that P=y. Describe what is true for O1 and O2. Describe what is true for P.
249: You first. Your initial claim was:
Reducing CO2 is important in the long run but there is no direct line of correspondence about what action taken today instead of 5 years from now will produce in the future. The science just isn't there.
B disagreed, and explained her disagreement in reasonable detail in her 141. Her position is in reasonable accordance with what I've read elsewhere; that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an urgent matter because the effects from each additional unit of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are likely to be non-linear (see also gswift's 239.)
If you've got some expertise-based reason to disagree with this, go ahead. But any argument of this form:
Perhaps you can articulate the conclusions and reasons that you seem to attribute to me and tell me how people in the field are at variance with that.
Is nonsense. State your own opinion -- don't expect other people to state it for you. If you're being misinterpreted, either straighten it out yourself, or if we aren't worth the effort drop the subject.
242, however, gets it exactly right.
In short, Yamamoto, we are suspicious of you.
Yamamoto: here you have minimized the urgency of global warning, and on the other thread you claimed that the Reagan administration's response to AIDS was adequate and that a more energetic response wouldn't have helped.
On this thread, at least, I did not in any way "impugn your motives or background." I did point out that all of your arguments are grounded on a vague claim to authority which we are not able to check, and are backed by rather vaguely stated technical arguments which we would be incapable of criticizing even if they were more fully stated.
On global warming, I suggest that you go to Realclimate.org, where you will find people who are able to engage you more effectively than we can.
On the "exponential" question Realclimate say "The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some 'tipping point' the system can flip and go rapidly into another state." BPhd was clumsily saying something like that. As I understand, you were not even saying that BPhd was wrong, but just that one aspect of the question is not fully understood.
Often we don't quite know the scope of what you're trying to say, but in the context of what everyone else is talking about it often seems that you're switching back and forth between the general policy ideas we're all talking about, and very specific technical questions we're not talking about and don't understand, and then when we interpret you as having said something about the thing we're talking about, you just retreat and say "Oh, no, I was just talking about this technical point you don't understand".
I think people are being unnecessarily rough on Miss M. In fact, I think most tempers in this thread are overheated, which is somewhat unfortunate for a post about comity.
That's all for now. Time to drink.
"I'm pinching your head!" like that Kids in the Hall sketch.
Actually, that's kinda fun.
Also, crushing. Jeez, AWB. Don't you know anything?
Shit, 259! I haven't owned a TV for ages.
258 Accuracy would have been funnier. It's "I'm crushing your head!" "I'm pinching your face."
Just sayin'.
257: Possibly? but I'm also suspicious of people who I don't know who claim to be on my side and are just helpfully piping up to point out that trolls do have a point.
"I'm pinching your face!"
"I'm pinching your face!"
Nah, this isn't fun at all. Who started this game?
Okay, here's where I start to get picky. A guy who mostly seems totally cute and nice and funny responded to my profile, but his contains the following sentence:
Normal, like liberal in american politics, is an oft misused word.
Maybe it's because I associate griping about the "misuse" of liberal with the biggest tool that ever tooled, my ex fascist current Communist with a libertarian phase in between ex roommate, but this is just such tiresome bullshit. This sentence presumes that people who use the word "liberal" don't know that it used to mean something different, and still means that with "classical" prefixed to it, when maybe they do know it, they just don't think that word meanings are totally static like, you know, sane people.
Also, he's too skinny for me, I think.
261: I guess "being funny" wasn't my purpose. Sorry I didn't make you laugh, w3.
264: Plus, pretentious use of the word "oft" along with snooty I'm-better-than-everyone-else sentiment.
252: I think that we have a relativist in the house.
LB, I used the term "climate sensitivity". There is no linear concordance between an increase in greenhouse gasses and global warming. What that means is that an exponential increase in greenhouse gasses does not mean an exponential increase in global warming. This is fairly straightforward, and there are very reasonable explanations at RealClimate.org. (I agree, mostly with what is on that site, if that's any indication of my position.)
I simply disagree with kneejerk dismissal of people who have disagreements about climate issues, particularly where the science in places where it isn't strong. There is still considerable scientific debate about climate sensitivity and about what the effects of reducing CO2 forcing will have on actual temperatures. This is a hugely complicated issue and I don't pretend to understand even most of it.
However, once an issue has become politicized it is turned into a binary absolute and there is no more room for discussion. That's what I protested in my post and it was in response to the perception that there is only one viewpoint, a settled viewpoint, about global warming and what to do about it.
I think he sounds nice, otherwise, though:
If I were an animal, I would be a friendly mongoose, perhaps somewhat like Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in the Jungle Book. I don't think that he ever bites unnecessarily. I am either very organized or not at all, although I prefer to think of myself as the former, there have been debates about it. The things I enjoy are innumerable, happiness is as easy as a delicious meal. I will read almost anything, from the back of a cereal box to Joyce. (Whether or not I understand it all is a different matter) Canoes are better than boats with motors, but I wouldn't refuse a ride. I know how to weld, make mead, cook, build a small house, swim underwater, rub backs (only one at a time), throw the haggis, listen, fall down and get back up again, but I generally don't like talking about myself, and declarative sentences are getting dull.
Seriously, Yamamoto, you sound like a tobacco/cancer skeptic to me. By setting a high enough standard for scientific claims, you can invalidate almost all of them. It seems like toughminded science, but in a policy context it can be obstructionism. Every scientific advance of any importance has had its skeptics -- mathematicians didn't accept calculus for over a century.
A very high proportion of the global warming skeptics are scientifically as ill-informed as we are, and are just grinding ideological axes. Another fair proportion are paid mouthpieces who have agreed to help the oil companies make the best possible case. These two groups deserve all the abuse they recieve.
I'm sure that there are some good honest scientists in the mix, but by now I feel quite reasonable in deciding against the skeptics.
To be fair, Yamamoto's position on global warming sounds very similar to what my meteorology professor used to say (basically, that it's real, and anthropogenic, but that the details aren't fully worked out and coverage in the press tends to be overly simplistic).
Teofilo, when was that and when was he educated?
"Old-school" scientists often fight the young guys every inch of the way. There's an emeritus skeptic at Oregon State U. (I think) who makes a lot of noise, and his credentials are good, but I really don't trust him, and it's been a decade or more since he's been on top of the field.
Yamamoto: here you have minimized the urgency of global warning ...
I don't want to dissect your whole post because I'm brought up short by the this first sentence. I said that there are things like the war in Iraq that are more urgent than global warming. There can't be just a litany of things that we don't like the republicans for. I think that dilutes the real issues. There has to be a focus on the most aggregious things. A steady increase in CO2 is dependent on a steady increase in population and CO2 use which can readily change if wars threaten the people and the planet.
That has to make sense, somewhere!
270: He sounds okay to me (although he could turn out to be a pretentious ass, of course). He may just be trying too hard with the profile.
Sure, but we're discussing policy. And if coverage is overly simplistic, then a good expert can do a great service in explaining the nuances, but John's right: Yamamoto always sounds like she's saying "it's more complicated than that" in order to dismiss the subject. And her claims of expertise and complication are belied, I think, by the initial statement that a five-year delay doesn't make any difference and would just push back the solution by five years. If there's disagreement and even she doesn't understand everything, then how can she in good conscience make such a simplistic statement?
"Seriously, Yamamoto, you sound like a tobacco/cancer skeptic to me."
I'm not. Does that help?
268: For me, where the rubber meets the road is on policy implications. I'm quite happy agreeing that we don't have all the data on secondhand smoke. In the meantime, I support smoking bans in restaurants.
I'm also quite happy to agree that we don't understand all of the complex factors that go in to the observed changes we see in the Earth, nor can we be sure that the particular changes being suggested with bring about the results we want. Meantime, I support buying hybrid cars, using less air conditioning, thinking carefully about whether I need overnight shipping or ground delivery, etc. I don't endorse buying an SUV on the grounds that (as Y has not said) we don't really know every detail of what's going on with global warming so why not have the car we want in the meantime?
Al Gore says that the scientific concensus on climate change is a good as it gets, and he's the person who was most recently legitimately elected president. We should trust people in positions of authority like that.
The episode of ST:TNG that I watched was the one where they find Data's evil brother, Lore. Very early episode -- the woman Data ends up boning is still alive.
"There can't be just a litany of things that we don't like the Republicans for."
"Just" sounds like less, but a litany is more (i.e, many issues). "Just" would be restricting ourselves to a single issue, such as the war in Iraq.
It's often hard for us to figure out precisely what you're trying to say, partly because you zero in on specifics while we're all talking about a general policy debate.
Teofilo, when was that and when was he educated?
Fall of 2005. He went to graduate school in the 80s.
274 makes no sense to me at all! The war in Iraq is not likely to make a significant dent in the world population, and if anything war contributes mightly to toxic emissions, what with building munitions, shipping things to foreign countries, flying airplanes all over the place, and so on.
I agree that the war is more immediately pressing. But global warming is obviously a far bigger and more important issue inasmuch as it threatens the entire planet.
272: Thank you, T. That was courageous. I hope that doesn't make you suspicious by association.
Of course it doesn't make him suspicious. It's the kind of thing we do here, and I like that: we're willing to contradict one another precisely because we get along and trust each other's judgment.
I know I sound like I'm being a snot. That isn't intended in a snotty way. It's intended in a "worrying that people are going to be suspicious of Teo suggests again a fundamental misapprehension of how this place works" way.
279 I see your appeal to authority trap and raise you with an in the absense of evidence, assertion of a fact does not make it so.
"Oh God, I hope these letters I'm reading on the screen don't get the wrong impression of me!"
"I wish these letters on the screen would be more fair to me!"
I agree that the war is more immediately pressing. But global warming is obviously a far bigger and more important issue inasmuch as it threatens the entire planet.
The immediacy of the war makes Iraq (and whatever else is happening in the Middle East) a more urgent matter during the time that Bush would still be president. In the long run, global warming is very big, threatens the entire planet and must be dealt with but there are no easily identifiable paths to a real solution there. The first goal of reducing CO2 to stabel levels in 2050 is a reasonable goal (and I support it!) but there is no certainty what it will do to future temperatures. Climate regulatory forces may already be in an unstable equilibrium.
286: Sheesh, you keep trying to establish this "in group - out group" boundary. I get the sense that this is a rather loose association of mostly decent people with varied viewpoints.
Yamamoto, hamstringing Bush while he's in office, and preventing him from having a Republican successor, are the primary steps required in doing anything about either the Iraq War or global warming. The opposition you're taling about is imaginary.
WD40: are you still here? Why?
289: Oh, absolutely. But I think it's absolutely crucial that we start saying, loud and clear, that global warming is a real and pressing issue. The problem with being moderate in the good scientist way is that in the meantime the Republican propaganda machine is convincing people that global warming isn't a problem. You're right, the administration isn't going to do anything about it; but if they convince the populace that it's a non-issue, that's going to make it much harder to do stuff about it a few years down the line, don't you think?
Or are you saying that inasmuch as dealing with global warming will be pretty much a question of who's in power, regardless of popular opinion, that worrying about it as an election issue is a poor strategy, inasmuch as it's one of those things that's too complicated to make a good case to voters about?
Which, come to think of it, isn't a bad argument....
290: I'm really not trying to establish such a boundary; I'm continuing with my explanation of why I, personally, am feeling uncomfortable with you.
That said, this extended discussion is helping.
It's not a matter of establishing an in-group/out-group boundary -- it's a matter of pointing out the fact that it already existed before this conversation started. There is a core group of people who leave upwards of 50 comments a day on this site, and you're not one of them. That's just a plain fact. I think the set of "insiders" is pretty open-ended, but to become an established insider takes a lot of hard work and dedication and chafing.
The problem with being moderate in the good scientist way is that in the meantime the Republican propaganda machine is convincing people that global warming isn't a problem.
Possibly, b. and I don't want to be supportive of such an agenda, but there is, I believe, a danger in setting absolutes on policy issues where the science does not support it. Yes, we need to make it very clear that global warming is real and that we need to start doing something about it and that we can't sustain the present energy consumption and environmental destruction. As a positive policy goal. However, using good science we also have to acknowledge that there are some real unknowns and, with that in mind, we can't reject people for ambivalent views on this topic. Afterall, there is some ambivalence in the science. Not in the fact that humans are causing the majority of climate forcing at this point and that, at this rate, real problems will ensue, but in the way we are able to go about changing that. This is an issue that we simply have to have a national consensus on if we are to move forward.
"And verily I say the first shall be first, and the last shall be fucked. Get over it." According to the apostle, Adam 9:28
It's not a matter of establishing an in-group/out-group boundary -- it's a matter of pointing out the fact that it already existed before this conversation started. etc.
Listen to yourself, AK.
Just to clarify, w3, I sincerely do think I'm better than you. I hope that admission gives you some satisfaction.
Listen to myself? What are you even talking about? Am I proving your point in some way? That's what I'm doing tonight, apparently, just non-fucking-stop.
Yamamoto, that's politically just wrong. Politics doesn't work that way. In order to move forward, we have to have an effective majority, not a national consensus. We will never have a consensus. I've been involved in consensus groups of about 30 members, where everyone had to sign on to any decision, and the simplest decision took hours and hours to get to. The group spent much more time deciding what to do than it did doing anything.
That's an exaggerated case, but at any point at which action is taken on global warming, there will be a few scientific skeptics objecting, and they will quite rightly be ignored. Policy is always like that.
Public opinion moves terribly slowly, and it's taken 30 years to come to an agreement that we should take any action at all on energy consumption and energy conservation (Carter was defeated in part because he said that we should). I think that the broad case has been made, and arguing about details in public only serves to slow things down. Skeptics about details should attend to details of implementation.
I note that in your posts you've stated in one place that the situation may not be too urgent, and in the other that it may be beyond hope, and that since we don't know if either one is true, we should not rush into anything. Granted that if our knowledge is really bad, both these possibilities might be real, but using both of them as a reason not to rush into action leads people to suspect that you have a skew.
You had me until the chafing part.
"Verily I say a sense of humor about my ideological and behavioral disconnect has a better chance of entering my body than a snarky conservative wolf in sheep's clothing has of entering the kingdom of Unfogged." according the apostle Adam 9:35
WD40 is still trying.
WD, it's been established that the dislike is mutual, and your anti-liberal batteries have to be fully recharged by now. We've been bullying your poor helpless self all along and you now have your excuse to continue on illiberaly as ever, so why are you here?
Almost everything you say is meta, and we're sick of your style of meta.
300: Yamamoto, that's politically just wrong. Politics doesn't work that way.
I dont' think current ways are working, whatever they are, and we have to find something new. Consensus views can be majority views and they are better than extreme views. Clinton was a centrist and a consensus builder and I see the Clinton years as good years.
Like any successful politician, Clinton played hardball, and to the extent that he was able to do so he rammed things through against his enemies' will. It's possible to be confused about this fact because his enemies were Democrats (e.g., on free trade) at least as often as they were Republicans.
This has nothing to do with consensus. What you were talking about is waiting until all the scientists agree, and that has nothing to do with Clinton one way or another.
297: Actually, Adam's right: it did exist, and it's long existed, and it's one of the things we like about this place. It bugs when newbies scold old hands about how things are supposed to be.
295 seems to contain multiple internatl contradictions:
there is, I believe, a danger in setting absolutes on policy issues where the science does not support it.
Okay. This is fine as a blanket statement. In the specific context of what you have been arguing, it sounds like you're saying that it is too early to have a political position on global warming. I disagree: we know that it is a fact. The political position is therefore, we need to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Yes, we need to make it very clear that global warming is real and that we need to start doing something about it
Okay, fine. Then I don't see what there is to argue about, here on this blog. We all agree this is the case.
However, using good science we also have to acknowledge that there are some real unknowns and, with that in mind, we can't reject people for ambivalent views on this topic.
What? Now it sounds like you're saying we can't reject people for thinking global warming isn't true. But you just said it's a fact.
Afterall, there is some ambivalence in the science. Not in the fact that humans are causing the majority of climate forcing at this point and that, at this rate, real problems will ensue, but in the way we are able to go about changing that.
That isn't ambivalence about the science of global warming as a fact; that is disagreement about policy. I don't think anyone here has said that any one specific policy is the only correct one on this issue. The only thing we all agree about, I think, is that doing something matters, because global warming is a fact, and the current administration denies both those things. Given that that is the consensus here, when you say that we can't blame people for disagreeing because science hasn't established the entire truth yet, it sounds an awful lot like being an apologist for the global warming naysayers.
This is an issue that we simply have to have a national consensus on if we are to move forward.
Yes. And the national consensus needs to be "global warming is real, and it is a serious problem." Pointing out that the science is ambivalent undermines moving forward with reaching that consensus.
It seems to me, then, that you're saying, on the one hand, "global warming is real and we need to agree on what to do about it" and on the other hand "but we can't agree on what to do about it because the science is unclear, so let's wait." That is infuriating to deal with, because it seems obstructionist and intellectually dishonest. If it's a problem, then let's talk about how to address the problem, instead of standing around saying, "but let's not beat up on people who disagree with us." That's a total distraction from the more pressing issue, which is, what should be done about the problem of global warming?
I suspect w3 of being the ToS at this point.
While I cannot address John directly out of a sense of respect for his cultural mores, I would like to dispute for the record that there is symmetry in the dislike of persons.
I love you all.
In that sense, WD40, we all love you too. Ain't language strange?
308 Shut up and pass the waffles, you big lug.
Seriously, I just reloaded the front page and thought, "W3's still here? I'm going to accuse him of having a monster crush on us!" Lo and behold, he beat me to it. So when do we start having babies? Who will bear them? Circumcision? Baptism? We have many hard choices before us.
AWB, Wd40 is a girl. Look at her email address. You ain't havin her babies.
She can have yours, John! Since she loves you and all. I bet she'll even bring you waffles and wait on you and be all submissive and shit, since that feminist crap is for those ridiculous liberals.
I think she's a libertarian. Libertarian babes are not willing to fecundate for less than $100k. And I don't blame tham a goddam bit.
Shit, JE. Sorry, w3. Today is AWB boner day.
I wouldn't blame them either, except that they seem to think that because they wouldn't have a kid for less than that, no one else should either, and people who do deserve to be poor for being so stupid.
I hate libertarians.
Ooh, AWB, if you've got a boner, maybe w3 can have your babies?
B, you have a right to your opinion, but even though it will soon be scientifically possible for men to fecundate with the help of a uterus implant, I ain't gonna to do it for less than $100k.
I don't care about the money, but I have my doubts if it's worth having a kid without a notarized contract defining the mutual parenting responsibilities each partner agrees to be held to. Oh well. Live and learn.
317 Who could have guessed you were a libertarian babe, John? Now will you pipe down for a minute while I watch bitchphd go at with the strawman. I'm trying to get over my irrational phobia of intimate relations between humans and scarecrows. Besides, any minute now she's going to realize that she just implied that you are a heartless bastard.
When you come back could you bring the popcorn? This libertarian box you got me in could use a few refreshments.
319: I'm reminded, oddly, of the film They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Seriously, this is a marathon trolling, and there's not even any prize money at the end.
and there's not even any prize money at the end
Shows how much you know.
I can see being unhappy if I read this thread upon coming home drunk at 6 in the morning.
Yes, we need to make it very clear that global warming is real and that we need to start doing something about it and that we can't sustain the present energy consumption and environmental destruction. As a positive policy goal. However, using good science we also have to acknowledge that there are some real unknowns and, with that in mind, we can't reject people for ambivalent views on this topic.
Where I break down on this is 'can't reject people for ambivalent views'. I don't know what that means -- reject them sexually? as friends? refuse to make political alliances with them? The state of play with global warming is that science has established as well as can be expected that it's real, anthroprogenic, and likely to have important negative consequences. While there is not consensus on exactly what we can to fix the problem, it seems clear that sitting around and letting it progress is a bad idea -- actively seeking solutions and trying to stop exacerbating the problem by adding additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is a good one. If someone disagrees with me on the subject of the last sentence, I am going to think that they have importantly bad policy ideas, and I'm going to reject their ideas. Doesn't mean I can't still make an alliance with them on health care, but I'm going to reject their ideas on global warming.
(And the argument you've made about global warming not being the most urgent issue facing us is just silly. Governments need to deal with many, many issues simultaneously -- any attempt to identify 'the most urgent issue' and focus solely on that until it was resolved and then move on to the next one would end up in the country collapsing in a pile of rubble.)
Can I share the dumbest CL ad? (I'm done surfing the dating sites for this weekend, I swear!)
I mean, it's pretty dumb to misspell the word "sleek" and seem not to know precisely what it means in the same title where you say you're looking for someone literary, but the best part is at the bottom, where he says he's 5'8" "by choice." This word, I do not think it means...
re 325
Without disputing your assessment of the ad to which you linked, it seems to me a strange selection for dumbest CL ad. I followed the link and found many, like this one, which seemed worse to me. So, the question I have is what makes the ad in 325 particularly dumb? Is it the failed attempt at seriousness?
I meant it sort of hyperbollically, as in, "OMG, the craziest thing happened to me today." However, I don't find the ad you linked to be stupid. Unrealistic, maybe, but not stupid. And I would have been embarrassed to attach my picture to it.
OK. Thanks.
What particularly struck me about the one I linked was not that the person making the ad thought that he was so hot that he would get responses, it was this sentence: The possibility of this developing into something more does exist. which I read as saying "I am such an incredible find that the mere possibility that being my fuck buddy could develop into my actually liking you should induce you into doing so." Self-confidence is sexy, but this seems like more than a bit much.
The unrealistic part isn't that he's bad looking; he's not; it just seems maybe unrealistic to look for someone who's available three times a week but doesn't want a relationship. But hey, maybe there is someone like that. I just would have been embarrassed to attach my picture because I wouldn't want my coworkers et al. to know I'd posted an ad for NSA sex.
I thought he was saying he wasn't totally closed off to a relationship, but didn't want one now. Describing his state of mind. But I guess you're right, it is kind of weird, since presumably his work schedule is going to remain the same, so it's more that he won't pay attention to someone until he's already gotten a lot of sex.
Why advertise yourself as "very very sexy" if you've got a picture attatched? Isn't that a determination for your audience to make?
And I don't know if this is relevant to the thread anymore, but I am often struck by how decent a guy Idealist seems to be from his comments. Maybe that manifests itself in a naive take on some political issues--or what I perceive to be a naive take--but if we were all cursed with such naivete, I don't think the world would be a worser place.
But he is wrong about everything he has ever posted here.
That "PLEASE BE ABLE TO HOST" is a big warning sign to me. There's something in his apartment he doesn't want you to see, like a girlfriend, or pictures of a girlfriend in Switzerland who doesn't know how to use the internet.
Also, I love how in pictures, some guys hold their arms out a little way from their bodies so one might imagine their enormous, rock-hard biceps prevent their shoulders from fully contracting.
And I like Idealist, too. He is likeable--wrong, yes, but likeable.
re: 330, 332
Aw, shucks. (for the likeable, not the wrong).
Actually, this is not a bad example of what many of us are arguing here. Similar political views are not necessarily what we want from interactions here. I think most of us merely want to be around people we trust and who trust us.
Last weekend, I was hanging out with some people I knew from my grad program and a local electrician who'd just joined us for a ball game. The electrician didn't necessarily agree with us about stuff, nor was he very readerly (which is what we say we're looking for in friends), but we all loved him because he was funny and nice and smart. Meanwhile, a guy was sitting next to me who was conversationally needy, kept trying to get each of the girls alone so he could make a play for sex, and was unnecessarily argumentative about weird shit. That is, I wouldn't necessarily think I'd get along with an electrician better than someone in my field any more than I'd assume I'd get along with a Republican better than with a Democrat. What we look for in friends, however, is not agreement or shared knowledge, not really. We're looking for people who will think the best of us and from whom we expect the best.
325: I think the simplest explanation is that he's 5'5" by the yardstick, but 5'8" by the choice he's made to say so.
...to become an established insider takes a lot of hard work and dedication and chafing.
That's what the lube is for.
Jeez, you crazy kids. Feeding trolls never got anyone anywhere. So much better to ignore.
Tia: here's my 2c. Don't go out with anyone whose profile is half as eager to please as the ones you're posting. It's almost painful to read that thing -- especially since I was totally guilty of it when I did online dating. And I was also totally needy and starved for affection. I doubt that's what you're looking for. I had much better luck with women whose ads were concise, and I got many more responses when I stopped being so fucking "Look at me I'm so clever and isn't that what you want? A nice clever guy instead of all those dumb lugs? I will penetrate your very SOUL, and will be so polite before doing the same thing to your vagina! Unless you want it rough! That can be arranged too! Just say the word! Mold me, damn it!"
Actually, that would make a fabulous personal ad. I'd respond to it, under the assumption that whoever wrote it had a fabulous sense of humor.
I think the one in 270 is totally unobjectionable. Anyway, I don't really like concision. My ad's not concise; it's elaborately clever. But I'm not going out with him.