How in the fuck do you talk to relatives about politics? You don't. Not worth the trouble.

And your boyfriend sounds like a fool. No offense.

Wayward, I totally know what you're talking about.  My brother used to listen to Glenn Beck.  Luckily, he was cured of that but he still watches Fox.  He used to be completely apolitical but now he "knows" everything and "knows" anyone who tries to argue the "facts" as he understands him, he just laughs because he "knows."  So, I don't talk politics with him at all.  I really believe that the brainwashing by Fox, Limbaugh et al is so thorough and so self-contained that there's no penetrating it.  They spoonfeed them not only the arguments but the responses if challenged.   I'm pretty sure that the only way people who have been brainwashed by the right will ever see reality is if it affects them personally, i.e. their life is saved by "Obamacare," they aren't permitted to vote because of some right wing voter suppression scheme, etc.  I really don't think you can argue with these people. 

I usually let my father talk himself into a hole. He used to be SOMEWHAT rational about politics, until he moved to Florida. Suddenly, any voice that was vaguely liberal in talk radio and mainstream media became muffled, in addition to his heavily-reduced interaction with other human beings. He began to lean pretty far right, and with my family being 9/11 NYers, he's always, forever, all-in for Giuliani, and absolutely against President Obama.

So eventually, I just learned that his ideas weren't fully formed in any way, so I would just ask questions and force him to rationalize himself. Last time we did that, he went on for like five minutes before his response was, "Well... I guess we have to bomb the Middle East." At that point, you HAVE to have someone on your family who realizes this man does not make sense, and hopefully he can realize he isn't sure what he's talking about either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman 

 

So, what the hell do I tell my father? Do I need to devote all my free time to looking up articles and arguments that contradict his own (and prove global warming) at the expense of my free time, because I can't provide a point by point rebuttal off the top of my head?

If your father is shooting point-by-point stuff at you and you care enough to argue back then yes. But then, if you haven't read articles which do contradict his points how are you so sure he is wrong? How do you know it isn't true that 10% of Occupy peeps are for reals and the other 90% aren't just your usual hippies and protest carnies?

p.s. Does your boyfriend believe we* went to the moon? Because NASA says we did. They also say global warming is happening. Coincidence?

* By "we" I mean "humans", not "you and I".

The only way to win is not to play.    How can you argue politics when that person likely believes the president  isn't even a natural born citizen?

The problem is that the way right wingers argue, you'll just be unwinding point A and he'll tie you up in point B.  When I've argued with people who are either a) brainwashed, or b) paid shills for PR firms, this is how it always goes.  If I were in your place, I'd just say, I don't want to talk politics.  That's what I have to do with my brother, even if he baits me.  You can't win.  If you want to send him into this forum, we could all have a go at him and it still wouldn't change his mind, even if we disproved all of his assertions.  The problem with right wing talking points is that they fall apart really easily but only if you're prepared.  They cherry pick obscure factoids and then wrap them in so much crap that you actually have to do a forensic examination to find out where they came from, understand why they were created, and then separate the factoid from the propaganda.  But you can't win because they will move onto something else.  It's an exercise in futility.  This is the genius of the right wing propaganda machine--it's impenetrable. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Shaver 

How in the fuck do you talk to relatives about politics? You don't. Not worth the trouble.

 

And your boyfriend sounds like a fool. No offense.

Eat me, shithead. 

No offense.

Says the guy who doesn't believe in global warming.

Right wing extremists and left wing extremists are BOTH retards. Sorry. If you have all the fucking answers, you should be running for political office, not jerking each other off in a stupid thread on a board about movies. 

And secondly, given that this is the internet, willing to believe the majority of you are atheists, or agnostic. Probably spout some shit about "proof" and not "faith". So I'm sure you'll understand when I say: as soon as they prove that global warming is real, related to us, and not just the natural life cycle of the planet over the course of billions of years (ice age, anyone? Anyone? It warmed back up. What did it? Mammoth farts? Campfires?), I will be right on board that sensationalistic train.

Essentially, until I see polar bear corpses floating by on the melted polar ice caps, there are far more important things to be worrying about. But no doubt you have all the answers about those too.

Exhibit A.   Seriously, that's a hell of a screed there.

Here's what pisses me off about today's Republicans.

They think they know more about science than scientists.   If you had a heart problem, would you go to a guy who saw an episode of House about it or a real doctor?   Republican Politicians are like those know it all blowhards at parties you can't wait to get away from.

They think they know more about document forging than the State Department.   Somehow they caught what the State Department missed when it issued Obama his Passport and cleared him to run for president.

They hate teachers.   Seriously.   Who hates teachers?   They do.

They hate college education and smart people in general.

They pander to or at least enable racism and homophobia.   This is not the same as saying all Republicans are racist but there is a tolerance or a look the other way attitude that's ugly.   What's even uglier is that they package racists and homophobes as victims.   For instance, gay people marrying makes hetero weddings somehow not so special any more.   Things like that.

They have a major victim complex.    Any time a Republican says or does something racist, Islamaphobic, or misogynistic, they run to FOX News and cry about how THEY are the victims.   Not, you know, their victims.   And if they apologize, they say "I'm sorry if that hurt anyone's feelings" which really isn't an apology at all.

I can go on and on but the point is that today's mainstream Republican isn't the same as the Republicans of yore when it was about issues and pragmatic solutions.     Now it's all about emotion and feelings and you can't argue with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 
 But no doubt you have all the answers about those too.

I will. Because I know all things.

"piece of shit nigger"

Jesus Christ. He's already bringing out the nukes right there, so you don't owe him measured/insightful/studied Political discussion. Just bone up on basic debating tactics and you can just play devil's advocate to whatever he brings up - let him argue with himself/do all the work essentially. If he starts bringing out the bigotry and "Damn Hippy" type phrases, just get him to explain what he means about a given subject without the lazy name calling. If he brings up anything irrelevant ie: birther and other such nonsense, the debating rules will give you plenty of techniques to discount them as a basis for an argument.

And the boyfriend...well, you can't choose your family...

EDIT: You're dating Hybris!?

Are we ready to take Jake up on his offer from the "All Members Read" thread? 

Also, DO NOT ENGAGE the relatives re: politics. It's a no-win situation. I would personally draw the line at outright racism, but you got to pick your battles. Just silently pity their ignorance and await the other 360 or so days you don't have to listen them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris So I'm sure you'll understand when I say: as soon as they prove that global warming is real, related to us, and not just the natural life cycle of the planet over the course of billions of years (ice age, anyone? Anyone? It warmed back up. What did it? Mammoth farts? Campfires?), I will be right on board that sensationalistic train.

One thing I've never understood about this line of thought:  even if global warming is only tangentially related to manmade factors, wouldn't a million years or so of ice age be a bad thing for people no matter what?  Seems like something we'd want to put off whether it's our fault or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

One thing I've never understood about this line of thought:  even if global warming is only tangentially related to manmade factors, wouldn't a million years or so of ice age be a bad thing for people no matter what?  Seems like something we'd want to put off whether it's our fault or not.

 

No doubt, man, no doubt. And yeah, okay, global temperature is up one degree, Celsius, over the past 30-40 years. Cool. It also spiked down .75 degrees to a degree (depending on your source) around the turn of the 19th century, and then back up a full degree by 1825.  Man, the wacky world we live in, right? I'm willing to bet people back then weren't running around pulling their hair out over it. 

But regardless, by all means, drive your hybrid car, or recycle, or whatever you want to do. I'm cool with it. Being environmentally conscious is never a bad thing.

BUT, if you can't admit that ad campaigns showing polar bears clinging to melted chunks of ice (and finishing up by saying "send us money" while you gaze into the soulful eyes of a baby polar bear) are simply an overzealous scam and an effort to create sensation and make money, you're fooling yourself. It's a moneymaking tool, and it's been blown wildly out of proportion.

But this is the problem. This, right here. As soon as someone doesn't agree with ONE point, they're the enemy. 

Is her dad an idiot? Absolutely. Is she wasting her time talking to him about it? Definitely. I've told her. She can tell you. 

But now I'm an idiot, just because I think global warming is a sensationalistic bullshit campaign. Now I am "exhibit fucking A" of a batshit Republican, and I somehow fit all the rest of that criteria.

I mean seriously? Who the fuck are you? How did you get in my head? All this bullshit armchair-quarterbacking of other (more qualified) people's decisions starts to grate after a while. Every pants-on-head twenty-something on the internet knows exactly how to fix what's wrong with the country. All of them.

I'll come right out and say it: I don't! No FUCKING idea. And you know what? Nobody else does either. There are tons of factors, and if you can't see what's wrong with adhering to all of one side's policies just because you think the OTHER side is stupid, I don't know what to tell you. And that's what it seems like, to me. Republicans do it (damn liberals!). Democrats do it (damn rednecks!).  Nobody wants to talk about politics. Everybody just wants to talk about how everyone ELSE'S views are stupid. WW does it with her dad. Her dad does it with her. Now you do it with me. Every debate, every interview, every fucking article I read is less about the issues at hand, or how to handle them, and more about what the other fucking side is doing wrong. Every fucking person in the country seems like a self-important know-it-all with a Twitter account and CNN as their homepage, and NPR on the radio in their car.

Personally, I don't care if you're a (D) or an (R) or whatever the fuck else. Write in and vote for Ronald McDonald, I don't give a fuck. But have your own fucking views instead of just trashing everyone else's. Jesus fucking christ. I defended my view of global warming. I didn't say anything about your view of global warming. I didn't say "if you drive a Prius you are a dickjuggling faggot hippie scarf-wearer". I just said "I think it's overblown". 

Jesus christ, the fucking internet. Everyone knows everything. 

Hmmmm ... do I believe sensationalistic NASA or do I believe common sense Hybris?

Why can't these decisions ever be easy?

Let me link you to my Twitter.

I just try not to mention Sri Lanka or Israel.

Hybris, I don't know how you think you can speak with so much authority about hard science.  The world's scientists agree that global climate change is urgent and desperately needs to be addressed.  The willful ignorance of you and people like you don't just hurt you, they hurt all of us and all the living things on this planet.  When I hear this "moneymaking scheme" idea, I think, let's see, Exxon Mobil is the most profitable corporation in the history of civilization, and Duke Energy isn't exactly a money-loser, why would anyone think there's any money in making changes that affect such profitable businesses?  If it were just about money, the scientists who are supposedly being paid off would all be on Exxon and Duke's side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

Essentially, until I see the cancer actually riddling my body, there are far more important things to be worrying about.

I mean, let's wait until the problem is SO bad that it's unfixable before we admit there's a problem.

I'm fortunate in that my parents have pretty much the same views I do.  It's my nephew and his baffling admiration for Ron Paul and Ayn Rand that worry me.

My nephew is the same way about Ron Paul.  They watch the internet movie Loose Change and a light bulb goes off over their heads, but they don't look at the whole philosophy, just the good parts.

I think it's required in this day and age that young people go through a libertarian phase. I know I did (it was mercifully brief).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

But this is the problem. This, right here. As soon as someone doesn't agree with ONE point, they're the enemy. 

 

Is her dad an idiot? Absolutely. Is she wasting her time talking to him about it? Definitely. I've told her. She can tell you. 

 

But now I'm an idiot, just because I think global warming is a sensationalistic bullshit campaign. Now I am "exhibit fucking A" of a batshit Republican, and I somehow fit all the rest of that criteria.

 

I mean seriously? Who the fuck are you? How did you get in my head? All this bullshit armchair-quarterbacking of other (more qualified) people's decisions starts to grate after a while. Every pants-on-head twenty-something on the internet knows exactly how to fix what's wrong with the country. All of them.

 

I'll come right out and say it: I don't! No FUCKING idea. And you know what? Nobody else does either. There are tons of factors, and if you can't see what's wrong with adhering to all of one side's policies just because you think the OTHER side is stupid, I don't know what to tell you. And that's what it seems like, to me. Republicans do it (damn liberals!). Democrats do it (damn rednecks!).  Nobody wants to talk about politics. Everybody just wants to talk about how everyone ELSE'S views are stupid. WW does it with her dad. Her dad does it with her. Now you do it with me. Every debate, every interview, every fucking article I read is less about the issues at hand, or how to handle them, and more about what the other fucking side is doing wrong. Every fucking person in the country seems like a self-important know-it-all with a Twitter account and CNN as their homepage, and NPR on the radio in their car.

 

Personally, I don't care if you're a (D) or an (R) or whatever the fuck else. Write in and vote for Ronald McDonald, I don't give a fuck. But have your own fucking views instead of just trashing everyone else's. Jesus fucking christ. I defended my view of global warming. I didn't say anything about your view of global warming. I didn't say "if you drive a Prius you are a dickjuggling faggot hippie scarf-wearer". I just said "I think it's overblown". 

 

Jesus christ, the fucking internet. Everyone knows everything. 

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything but have you thought that you might not know enough about man-made global warming/climate change. You say it's overblown and just a money scheme, which is an opinion you are entitled to, but it isn't likely that tens of thousands of scientists got together and altered their work to plan some great trick on humanity. The large margin between the people with the specialized knowledge that believe in it and the ones with the same knowledge that don't, is enough to convince me that it isn't some grand scheme. I guess I struggle to understand how so much information supporting man-made global warming can be disputed in any manner other than simply ignoring it.

Oh damn! This thread took a quick turn towards the embarrassing.

To lighten the mood a bit:

As for your question WW, don't bother. Do as I do. Just let them rant and keep drinking.

There is a turning point in this kind of stuff. For me it was when the matter of gay marriage and adoption was broached and my father put forth the glorious opinion that it shouldn't happen because they'd be able to adopt young kids so they could fuck them. I almost choked on my food. Well I either had to say nothing, keep drinking and never ever again let such a discussion happen or start an actual fight and damn the collateral damage.

Some would call it cowardice, I call it keeping the peace once a week during the Sunday lunch.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

My nephew is the same way about Ron Paul.  They watch the internet movie Loose Change and a light bulb goes off over their heads, but they don't look at the whole philosophy, just the good parts.

I stopped watching "Loose Change" a few minutes in when they tried to make out that a terrorism report written in 1996 with a picture of the WTC on the cover with a target drawn over it was some sort of conspiracy and showed what happened in 2001 was planned. I just thought it might be because it had been previously bombed in 1993 might have been a more likely explanation. It really does hurt your argument when you're throwing in everything including the kitchen sink because it just doesn't mesh.

Mind you, in the same way that the events of 2001 somehow made a whole group of people experts in metallurgy, engineering, demolition and a variety of other sciences that previously took years of university study by my understanding, there seems to be the same phenomenon going on with climate change science.

I take the view that it seems very unlikely that a huge multitude of scientists are faking their findings because they couldn't be consistently be all faking it the same way for any significant length of time. A lot of the debate is over the interpretations of these findings. Of course they wouldn't all agree about everything but there's numerous people dedicating their working lives to this and I think given time, we'll get a lot of rigourously tested findings in due course which will give us a very good answer one way or the other. You know if, we could put a man on the moon (several times) back in 1960s etc etc ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman 

It just feels doubly difficult to bite my tongue living in the region I do. There's an anti-abortion sign right across my street. In a residential area. Just sitting there. I drive past more billboards and signs that vouch for school prayer, anti-evolution stances, more anti-choice sentiments, and then to get that from people - it's not just my father in my family, it's nearly from my whole family. The statement my father made about the president is what really made me try to broach the subject of hwo he feels that way, because it's so extreme and objectionable. Ugh.  Drinking sounds like a great idea

 

 

Re: Hybris and Global warming

Yes, I'm dating him, and disagreements about climate change aside, he makes me incredibly happy. 

This is a hard one for me. Possibly unlike most of the people here, I've seen abortions done. Not on video either.

So if I were ever asked what my opinion is, I tend to step sideways and say with my answer that if people are anti-abortion they should be fully in favour of proper sex education and contraception because to start with that will go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

If someone says I haven't actually answered the question, I'd go on to say that up to half of technical pregnancies fail to implant naturally anyway and any drugs that help prevent that or eject early implantation, what your ejecting really is a clump of cells that is miniscule at a few days old. There's no way to know if would have implanted or not specifically, you would have just changed the overall odds to reduce the chances of a successful pregnancy further.

If pressed even further because of my dodging up to that point, I'd say that I was in favour of abortion for a number of reasons including the huge mortality rate in many countries where such services are not available, people are still going to seek it and the rich people among us will just travel to where they can get it anyway. Restricting it just affects the poorest in society disproportionately.

Finally, I'd have to say that primarily, pregnancy's a really big event in someone's life and it really is none of my business.

Getting back to my original sentence though, having seen it in practice, it really was not a pleasant experience. I can reel off a list of reasons above and I really do that ... but I guess what I'm trying to say that in some way I'm really conflicted in some fashion I still can't articulate which leads to some really confused thought by myself let alone talking about it with other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman 
Re: Hybris and Global warming

Yes, I'm dating him, and disagreements about climate change aside, he makes me incredibly happy. 

And at the end of the day, that's all that's important isn't it?

I've just completely stopped talking to relatives of a certain political bent. They don't enhance my life in any way and in fact cause me undue stress. My dad has said a lot of frightening things over the past decade or so. Whenever there's a story about a "lone wolf" going berserk, I half-expect to see he's the culprit when I read the article.

I certainly won't date anyone outside of my political spectrum. The amount of double-think that comes with being a Republican these days is enough to break one's brain and speaks to a deeper level of psychological trauma that I don't want any part of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

I stopped watching "Loose Change" a few minutes in when they tried to make out that a terrorism report written in 1996 with a picture of the WTC on the cover with a target drawn over it was some sort of conspiracy and showed what happened in 2001 was planned. I just thought it might be because it had been previously bombed in 1993 might have been a more likely explanation. It really does hurt your argument when you're throwing in everything including the kitchen sink because it just doesn't mesh.

 

Mind you, in the same way that the events of 2001 somehow made a whole group of people experts in metallurgy, engineering, demolition and a variety of other sciences that previously took years of university study by my understanding, there seems to be the same phenomenon going on with climate change science.

 

I take the view that it seems very unlikely that a huge multitude of scientists are faking their findings because they couldn't be consistently be all faking it the same way for any significant length of time. A lot of the debate is over the interpretations of these findings. Of course they wouldn't all agree about everything but there's numerous people dedicating their working lives to this and I think given time, we'll get a lot of rigourously tested findings in due course which will give us a very good answer one way or the other. You know if, we could put a man on the moon (several times) back in 1960s etc etc ...

I actually mis-posted.  The movie with Ron Paul as the hero is Zeitgeist.  Let's not open in this can of worms. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

 

A lot of the debate is over the interpretations of these findings. Of course they wouldn't all agree about everything but there's numerous people dedicating their working lives to this and I think given time, we'll get a lot of rigourously tested findings in due course which will give us a very good answer one way or the other. You know if, we could put a man on the moon (several times) back in 1960s etc etc ..

See, and I get this. I'm waiting for this. A good answer, rather than "we think so" or "we're pretty sure". I've read studies from both sides of the spectrum, and I'm not prepared to hang my hat on the side of "this 1-degree rise in global temperature over 50 years is cause for widespread panic and rioting", because I'm not entirely sure that's true, and there are educated, notable members of the scientific community who agree.

It's a nice, warm glow in here, though. I'm enjoying the notion that it's batshit, bugnuts insane to not agree that global climate change is going to destroy the world without seeing relevant facts presented without any "buts"... but it's perfectly logical and acceptable to arm-chair quarterback my political affiliations and intelligence, gang up and insult me for them, based on one single tidbit of information regarding my decision to wait and see.

Ahhh, the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 
So if I were ever asked what my opinion is, I tend to step sideways and say with my answer that if people are anti-abortion they should be fully in favour of proper sex education and contraception because to start with that will go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

 

to continue on this tangent....the above text is the core problem....I would bet that a huge percentage of anti-choice advocates don't want proper sex education taught to kids (and that's who it needs to be taught to) and easier access to contraception as it is "against god's will".  Am I using too broad a brush to paint the anti-choice lobby? ...In my experience, no.

I have had a fair share of ex co-workers that were pretty religious (church every Sunday) and in the course of working with them, the abortion debate came up now and again. My first question to them if they oppose abortion was that they must support sex education/contraception....the answer about 90% of the time was "NO".....their rational was that just 'talking' about sex/contraception just encourages sexual activity....in their minds, if you don't discuss it, it doesn't exist. Human nature was something to be repressed in their eyes

This is of course, is based on their religious faith ("sex is sin") and the way that they were taught to not question their beliefs....which kind of segues into the thought processes of the modern day GOP and it's embracing of the religious right.

The modern day GOP mostly see themselves as infallible....this is why you hardly ever see them admitting they are wrong about anything (see: Dubya and his inability to be introspective and admit any sort of fault)

As far as debating politics with relatives....it could be considered both a blessing and a curse as both my parents happen to be dead and we never really got around to discussing it.

That being said, they were fairly open minded but as they were from a different time (my father served in WW2) little prejudices would sneak in every now and then. If they were still around, I don't think they would have any problems with Obama being prez.

I did get a spam "Fox talking point" email once from a distant aunt....I sent her a response where ever single point was refuted...never got another email from her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Hybris, I don't know how you think you can speak with so much authority about hard science.  The world's scientists agree that global climate change is urgent and desperately needs to be addressed.  The willful ignorance of you and people like you don't just hurt you, they hurt all of us and all the living things on this planet.  When I hear this "moneymaking scheme" idea, I think, let's see, Exxon Mobil is the most profitable corporation in the history of civilization, and Duke Energy isn't exactly a money-loser, why would anyone think there's any money in making changes that affect such profitable businesses?  If it were just about money, the scientists who are supposedly being paid off would all be on Exxon and Duke's side.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? They all agree, really? All of them? You've read every study and finding and bit of information regarding global warming that has ever existed, and there have never been any educated, dissenting opinions?

I mean, I guess it's possible. It just seems weird that in my journeyman's pursuit of knowledge regarding the issue, I've found as many dissenting opinions as assenting, as well as plenty of facts that suggest we are probably not having as big an affect as we think. Have you done any research into the opposing side of your argument? Or do you just stick to the facts presented by your side and pretend it's good enough? As I have said, no doubt we are having an effect. How much of an effect? That's up in the air (heh, puns). And I don't buy into the notion that hanging your hat on an argument without being well-informed is healthy or smart, so I did my research, I compared facts, and I opted to NOT donate money every year to drowning polar bears. Sue me.

I had a lot of thoughts, but it probably isn't worth anyone's time to read them.  But here are a few anyway.  You may then bin me where you think I go.

To be blunt, this thread is a clear illustration of the problem.  The only way to have any effective conversation is for engaged parties to be willing to LISTEN.  Not TALK, but to listen.

And most people are partisan when it comes to their political beliefs.  They are often less intellectually invested than emotionally invested, and that is a poor starting place for a conversation.

I see the words "Republican" and "right wing" thrown about in here, as if the process is tainted by those specific political philosophies.  My wife spent years working as a senior staffer in Congress, for two Democrats and one Republican (hers wasn't a political position).  Long story short, the emperor has no clothes.  The Dems spent just as much time (in one anecdotal case, much more) on call time as the Republicans.  Call time, if you haven't seen The Wire, is when you call rich people for money for your campaign.  And the most liberal of the three members would spend campaign donations on lunch and loved private flights (less travel time, more convenient).  All of them tried to cram in just enough official business on trips in order to spend NON-campaign dollars as much as possible, saving those precious campaign dollars for billboards, ads, and mailers.

Partisans or evangelicals (as they share the same perspective) have great difficulty engaging with people who don't align very closely.  They only want to TALK.

How does that quote go: "If you want someone to think you are intelligent, simply agree with them." 

People don't want to discuss issues, they want reinforcement of already held opinions.  That applies equally as much for liberals as it does for conservatives.

People seek out news sources that pre-conform to their worldviews.  This creates a simple cycle of reinforcement, ad nauseum.

In truth, don't engage with anyone who isn't willing to listen.  Furthermore, you can't learn anything from someone who completely agrees with you.

Hybris, you'd be taken more seriously if you stopped referring to environmental causes as if they were some nefarious ponzi scheme invented by ferrari-driving evil scientists duping us with sad polar bears while lauging all the way to the bank, and that your own serious research has lifted the scales from your eyes, and everyone else on either "side" is just marching in lockstep.

If you're being condescended to in this thread, it's because you're inviting it upon yourself.

Ahhh, the internet.

As far as talking to relatives about politics, don't. Just tell a joke and ask them to pass the gravy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Hybris, you'd be taken more seriously if you stopped referring to environmental causes as if they were some nefarious ponzi scheme invented by ferrari-driving evil scientists duping us with sad polar bears while lauging all the way to the bank, and that your own serious research has lifted the scales from your eyes, and everyone else on either "side" is just marching in lockstep.

 

If you're being condescended to in this thread, it's because you're inviting it upon yourself.

I think I explained myself pretty well. I think you're all having a circle jerk in here because you're internet friends. Hey, it happens. But no, I'm not inviting condescension, I'm asking questions (that will not be answered, naturally). I think there is a sect of the global warming movement that IS laughing all the way to the bank, yes. Same as animal rights activists. Sometimes they even intersect.

My research into the subject has led me to form my own opinion, which naturally I will try to share, just like every other fucking person in this thread. You don't like it? Great. Carry on. But if someone calls me stupid, I'm going to dispute the point.. especially when it starts before I'm even in the thread. Especially when it's someone running to where they know people will agree with them to hash this out because they don't feel confident enough in their own views (which she and I have already established was the case here). Was I somehow inviting condescension without even being in the thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

I think you're all having a circle jerk in here because you're internet friends. Hey, it happens. But no, I'm not inviting condescension...

Nope, not condescending at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

Quote:

See, and I get this. I'm waiting for this. A good answer, rather than "we think so" or "we're pretty sure". I've read studies from both sides of the spectrum, and I'm not prepared to hang my hat on the side of "this 1-degree rise in global temperature over 50 years is cause for widespread panic and rioting", because I'm not entirely sure that's true, and there are educated, notable members of the scientific community who agree.

 

It's a nice, warm glow in here, though. I'm enjoying the notion that it's batshit, bugnuts insane to not agree that global climate change is going to destroy the world without seeing relevant facts presented without any "buts"... but it's perfectly logical and acceptable to arm-chair quarterback my political affiliations and intelligence, gang up and insult me for them, based on one single tidbit of information regarding my decision to wait and see.

 

Ahhh, the internet.

If I may ask a question....what amount of scientific evidence would be sufficient to sway your opinion over to the idea that there is actual human caused climate change occurring?

Wayward, most of my family is very conservative and feels that votes for the Democratic Party are votes against white people.  Almost every political issue you can chalk up somehow harks back to race for them.  My mom's the normal one, and I show up to all the family functions with a smile on my face simply because of her.  When politics come up (and they always come up), I don't say a word.  Initially, these moments were pretty uncomfortable, especially if I was just sitting there, listening to their rants.  Eventually, I figured out that excusing yourself is always the best way to go about this sort of thing.  Pretend you have a phone call and find another room.  Start up a separate conversation with someone else (this one works very well for me, usually).  Go play with the kids or the family pet (if applicable). 

There was a brief time when I would try to debate certain family members, but that never led to anything good.  I got called every name in the book (probably a few made-up ones too) and never came close to changing anyone's mind on any subject.  Their views are set, case closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Nope, not condescending at all.

 

I'm meeting condescension with condescension. Five minutes ago you were telling me that the people in this thread were justified in doing so to me. How does that work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

My research into the subject has led me to form my own opinion, which naturally I will try to share, just like every other fucking person in this thread. 

Links?  Sources?  You're slamming us for taking the scientists at face value, but you're pretty much asking us to do the same with your opinion with nothing to back it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

If I may ask a question....what amount of scientific evidence would be sufficient to sway your opinion over to the idea that there is actual human caused climate change occurring?

Isn't that sort of a personal thing? I think it's fairly obvious that it will be enough to sway me when there are significant facts in support that can't be refuted or dismissed, just like with any other argument in the history of the world. What a pointless, asinine question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Links?  Sources?  You're slamming us for taking the scientists at face value, but you're pretty much asking us to do the same with your opinion with nothing to back it up.

Right, so we turn it into a link war, where I get slammed for using "RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA" sources while being hammered with stuff from the other side. Here's a pro-tip: if you weren't a bunch of "me too" assholes from the start, people would be more inclined to converse with you and not get defensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

If I may ask a question....what amount of scientific evidence would be sufficient to sway your opinion over to the idea that there is actual human caused climate change occurring?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybris 

What a pointless, asinine question.

Maybe we should rename this thread "How in the fuck do you talk to Hybris about anything?" 

As I stated... she came where she knew people would agree with her. Fake people. Words on a computer screen. No risk. Blind validation as a reward. I'd be perfectly willing to sit down and discuss this. I have. I've swayed people. People have swayed me. We've gone back and forth. But you think I'm going to seriously give you any of my time when it STARTS OUT as a head-bashing party? Fucking please.

For as much as people in this thread are bashing Republicans for having their minds made up and being wooden and impossible to reach, I sure do see a lot of it going on pretty close to home.

Regardless, I'll just go back to posting about Skyrim. You lot can have your thread. You can make posts about chasing me out, or whatever... this is the internet, after all. But frankly, it's not worth any of my time conversing with people who are just out to make somebody else look stupid from the start. You're not going to listen, you don't care about my links. I'm "wrong". It's palpable. Your minds are made up.