Science strikes back: anti-Trump march draws thousands to Washington

[Pterodactylus]

I mean, why not just be civil instead? I think the intention of the forum is to discuss and share ideas. I don't think too many posters come here to get insulted and called names. It's much more interesting to debate ideas intellectually, without having to resort to petty name calling and such. Don't you agree?

The point of debate is to have honest discussion. It's much more interesting to debate reality rather than blatant lies or false information. Don't you agree? Shouldn't that be the starting spot? I am calling you out on peddling misinformation. If you are stating misinformation intentionally you are lying and if you are stating misinformation because you are ill-informed then you are ignorant (without knowledge). It's not "petty name calling" but rather an observation, as I have stated several times.

Perhaps you have an "alternative" word for passing along false information that would not trigger you as much that you would like me to use instead of lying or ignorant?

[Alexeht]

Even if something like 'global warming' exist, I would not expect people to stop their destructive behavior on nature. Not single one from those scientist will stop using gas/petrol, none of them will stop using products made in toxic China (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/polic...nas-toxic-smog) and they will still pollute earth (especially with their scientific tests). I don't blame them, not many people have money so they could buy electric car, not buying from China seems even more unrealistic, and we all need science to move forward - even if that means scientists 'playing' with uranium.

But I think that instead making anti-Trump march, they should just make anti-capitalism, anti-rich-people (that would include Trump, but not focus on him - I don't believe that he have enough 'heat' to make anything warm) and anti-consumptionism march instead.

[Sky High]

still waiting for these examples of the EPA just suing people and keeping their hands tied up in court for extended periods of time for clearly malicious reasons.

[IIamaKing]

I see what you mean, and I agree that people should be more open to talking and not yelling, but at the end of the day, the truth doesn't have to be nice to be the truth. You don't have to be nice to be objectively correct. People who are objectively correct lose their patience when surrounded by people who are objectively wrong on a daily basis and it takes a toll on their ability to discuss and debate.

Facts are facts and they don't change based on how nice a person is, I agree. But people being receptive to those ideas certainly is influenced by how things are presented. That's all I have been trying to get at. No one is winning anyone over to their side these days, they are yelling in their echo chambers to an audience who wants to eat the shit they spew. Yeh Mr. Limbaugh, I am sure democrats are willing to hear you out on an issue after you have been calling them communists and other assorted insults for 20 years. Oh yeh Berkeley students, I am positive the people you hate love you now after having labeled them racist, bigots.

Even if you are talking to Hitler, you should still be civil and let the ideas speak for themselves. If you find yourself unable to continue with a person because they just dont get it for whatever reason, you dont just say "ehh fuck it, you are an idiot" Thats a sure way to never be able to reach that person.

People can change, ideas and beliefs evolve over time. I am where I am now in political stance because of 20 years of growth. I used to be heavily anti gay marriage, THIS forum offered arguments I could not refute and changed my mind.

Its the "Us or Them" attitude. YOU are not my enemy if you wish to see stricter controls on guns. I am not YOUR enemy because I believe in full legalization of drugs. We just have different ideas is all.

[De Lupe]

But I think that instead making anti-Trump march, they should just make anti-capitalism, anti-rich-people (that would include Trump, but not focus on him - I don't believe that he have enough 'heat' to make anything warm) and anti-consumptionism march instead.

It's not an anti-Trump march. It is a march protesting the anti-intellectualism legislation that Trump just so coincidentally is leading. If Clinton or Obama were pulling this shit, they would have had a march too.

[IIamaKing]

Do you think these debates just start off with people flinging insults at each other? No they come about because the denier side adamantly refuses to even entertain the notion that they may be wrong and then they start insulting a scientists life work and even goes after their livelihoods with regressive legislation and you think the scientists are the ones that should be taking the high road and not get angry with these people that choose to stay willfully ignorant?

So....because one side refuses to listen it gives you lease to be rude? Sorry no, I do not agree. WE are talking grade school manners here, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Flinging shit because THEY flung shit.....come on now, be better than that.

[Endus]

There's no reasoning with people like you who fall back on the "government is God" authoritarian "might is right" bullshit, and that's exactly what it is. When or if the EPA is disbanded, I'm sure you'll honor the law of the land as it exists at that point in time. Sure.

There's nothing "authoritarian" about recognizing that government has to have some authority. By your use of the term, literally anything but pure anarchism is "authoritarian". Can't murder people who annoy you because of that DAMNED authoritarian government stoppin' you!

Land ownership has essentially never meant you were sovereign on that land and able to use it in whatever manner you chose.

The "side" of AGW is real. You think you are going to do that by calling those who disagree with you ignorant liars? Tip, you wont. But by all means keep on keeping on. How many different ways do I have to say it?

What you're saying is that we should worry about the feelings of those who've already decided to lie and mislead the public, because if we don't we'll never win them over.

Well, we'll never win them over if we're nice, either.

There aren't two sides to this. There's the informed scientists. There's the dishonest conspiracy nutcases and the abusive corporations funding them. And then there's the much larger side of the public. Demonstrating how dishonest the conspiracy nuts are is necessary in showing the public how disreputable and malicious their views are. If they don't want to be correctly labelled as such, maybe they should stop lying to people, rather than whining that they're (correctly) being shown to be liars.

[Toppy]

Even if something like 'global warming' exist, I would not expect people to stop their destructive behavior on nature. Not single one from those scientist will stop using gas/petrol, none of them will stop using products made in toxic China (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/polic...nas-toxic-smog) and they will still pollute earth (especially with their scientific tests). I don't blame them, not many people have money so they could buy electric car, not buying from China seems even more unrealistic, and we all need science to move forward - even if that means scientists 'playing' with uranium.

But I think that instead making anti-Trump march, they should just make anti-capitalism, anti-rich-people (that would include Trump, but not focus on him - I don't believe that he have enough 'heat' to make anything warm) and anti-consumptionism march instead.

This is one of the saddest posts I've ever read on this website.

[Slirith]

*shrug* Won't really do anything with Trump and his ilk running the government.

[Endus]

Its the "Us or Them" attitude. YOU are not my enemy if you wish to see stricter controls on guns. I am not YOUR enemy because I believe in full legalization of drugs. We just have different ideas is all.

And we're not talking about an issue for which there's subjective interpretations. If you want to equate this to the drug issue, then the scientists are saying "drugs have a wide range of effects, and some are dangerously addictive, we should approach this issue while recognizing that." And the deniers are saying "Nah, drugs are fine, let's give kids cocaine in school so they can have more energy! Let's give them heroin to help them sleep!"

That's the level of malice that underlies the issue. It shouldn't be treated as a valid side, at all. It's malicious and dishonest, and seeks only to harm.

When the "us" is "the entire scientific community", and the "them" is "a bunch of con artists and malicious liars", they ARE the enemy of the people, and should rightly be treated as such.

[Dug]

So....because one side refuses to listen it gives you lease to be rude? Sorry no, I do not agree. WE are talking grade school manners here, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Flinging shit because THEY flung shit.....come on now, be better than that.

It's this mentality that normalizes anti-intellectualism and emboldens these people to think they're on the same level as someone who's spent the majority of their life studying X subject. Personally I wouldn't even bother with these jack asses and since most scientists aren't politicians I don't expect them to not give in to base reactions like insulting someone back who starts shit first.

On that note lets be real clear here and make it known that when people say "scientists" are insulting them what they actually mean is some twitter activists and so and so politician, rarely if ever the scientists themselves.

Or in this case, some forum posters like myself that people will then use as "evidence" of the "scientific community" insulting people.

[IIamaKing]

What you're saying is that we should worry about the feelings of those who've already decided to lie and mislead the public, because if we don't we'll never win them over.

Well, we'll never win them over if we're nice, either.

There aren't two sides to this. There's the informed scientists. There's the dishonest conspiracy nutcases and the abusive corporations funding them. And then there's the much larger side of the public. Demonstrating how dishonest the conspiracy nuts are is necessary in showing the public how disreputable and malicious their views are. If they don't want to be correctly labelled as such, maybe they should stop lying to people, rather than whining that they're (correctly) being shown to be liars.

Yeh you are right being rude is better. There are people you will never convince no matter what, I understand that. You do what you can while being civil to inform those you can. Once you resort to mudslinging you have failed. Wont be responding further, would never have imagined that "be civil in debate" would be so controversial an idea.

[Glorious Leader]

Just to note: there's worthless and bad research. There's non repeated experiments presented as the ultimate truth. Thats not the case on climate change or vaxxing

I actually dont think that research can ever be worthless. It simple more data. Its better to argue that some areas for research may be less fruitful than others but thats relative as well.

[Adam Jensen]

Isn't climate change natural? You know 4 seasons...

That's not climate change.

[Ivanstone]

No, I was pointing out that bogus or faulty science can have a lasting and large impact on people See anti vax or gmo hate. Thanks again.

You conflated that with AGW not me.

Its almost like you have a post history in this thread and what you say in one post might relate to what you say in a subsequent post.

I am not against compromise but let me illustrate what the opposition is.

Obama wanted to find a healthcare reform that Republicans might like as a form of compromise. So he trots out a Obamacare which was more or less created by a conservative think tank. He is immediately rebuffed and was told that there would he would get no victories and would be a one-term president.

He is then promptly criticized for not compromising on anything.

Those same politicians who refuse to compromise, accuse the opposition of not being able to compromise are the same politicians who are in the back pocket of the fossil fuel industry. Out of 17 Republican Presidential candidates only one thought AGW was real. That was Lindsey Graham and do you know why he thinks its real? Because he's a military man and the U.S. military despite being chock full of conservatives is pro-environment.

You complain of bogus science hurting people yet you seem strangely silent on money concerns hurting people. I can't help but think that your "compromise" is only to delay or obfuscate important concerns.

[Felya]

Yeh you are right being rude is better. There are people you will never convince no matter what, I understand that. You do what you can while being civil to inform those you can. Once you resort to mudslinging you have failed. Wont be responding further, would never have imagined that "be civil in debate" would be so controversial an idea.

Really? With this forum constantly filled with cuck this and PC is evil that, this is what brings the unimaginable?

[Endus]

Yeh you are right being rude is better. There are people you will never convince no matter what, I understand that. You do what you can while being civil to inform those you can. Once you resort to mudslinging you have failed. Wont be responding further, would never have imagined that "be civil in debate" would be so controversial an idea.

What you are still failing to recognize is that, by deliberately lying to mislead people, the conspiracy theorists were malicious and dishonest, without any provocation.

They are the ones who abandoned civility to engage in malicious manipulation. Calling them out for doing so is not "rude". It's accurate and necessary.

[PC2]

And how do you propose to find solutions without first analyzing the data?

I'm talking about priorities. Scientists cant prioritize everything at once. Data analysis is fine but there should be a solutions or innovation stage after that.

Once you move into the realm of government and economic policy, scientists have no special authority over what a country ought to do.

[IIamaKing]

And we're not talking about an issue for which there's subjective interpretations. If you want to equate this to the drug issue, then the scientists are saying "drugs have a wide range of effects, and some are dangerously addictive, we should approach this issue while recognizing that." And the deniers are saying "Nah, drugs are fine, let's give kids cocaine in school so they can have more energy! Let's give them heroin to help them sleep!"

That's the level of malice that underlies the issue. It shouldn't be treated as a valid side, at all. It's malicious and dishonest, and seeks only to harm.

When the "us" is "the entire scientific community", and the "them" is "a bunch of con artists and malicious liars", they ARE the enemy of the people, and should rightly be treated as such.

Seems you are focusing on the perpetrators of the lies, I am talking about the individuals interacting with other individuals on forums in person and so forth. The people who listen to Limbaugh do not deserve your ire, if they are wrong, inform them in a civil manner. If they refuse to listen, move on. You will never convince anyone by being rude. Unless you do not care to convince others? To bring more people to the light as it were, a stronger force to shape policy.

What you are still failing to recognize is that, by deliberately lying to mislead people, the conspiracy theorists were malicious and dishonest, without any provocation.

They are the ones who abandoned civility to engage in malicious manipulation. Calling them out for doing so is not "rude". It's accurate and necessary.

@Endus

[Felya]

What you are still failing to recognize is that, by deliberately lying to mislead people, the conspiracy theorists were malicious and dishonest, without any provocation.

They are the ones who abandoned civility to engage in malicious manipulation. Calling them out for doing so is not "rude". It's accurate and necessary.

I don't understand why this is the issue we need to be politically correct about. Trump wins as the anti-PC candidate, but you have to be nice to those supporting his policy.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems you are focusing on the perpetrators of the lies, I am talking about the individuals interacting with other individuals on forums in person and so forth. The people who listen to Limbaugh do not deserve your ire, if they are wrong, inform them in a civil manner. If they refuse to listen, move on. You will never convince anyone by being rude. Unless you do not care to convince others? To bring more people to the light as it were, a stronger force to shape policy.

According to Limbaugh, being nice played a role in spreading Ebola:

https://mediamatters.org/video/2014/...may-hav/200971