Growing anti-science stance in "skeptic community"

[Endus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw

Climate shill won't debate with guy he knows will kick his alarmist ass. he was specifically blacklisted by his organization.

You mean "respected scientist doesn't stick around and argue with a known liar".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-inaccurate
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-sc...r-8519f36faf77

Note that Spencer isn't ridiculed because he's contrarian, but because the specifics of his arguments in doing so are dishonest, misleading, and misrepresent the science deliberately.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't recall ever making personal judgments about you, in this thread or any other. Why not just stick to the topic, instead of trying to smear other posters with lies and insults? Why not be civil instead? I thought Canadians were known for being polite. Are you not from Canadia?

You're still inventing a personal attack that was never made. It's becoming clear that you're not interested in actually defending your original comments, and just want to play the victim.

[Tijuana]

You mean "respected scientist doesn't stick around and argue with a known liar".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-inaccurate
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-sc...r-8519f36faf77

- - - Updated - - -



You're still inventing a personal attack that was never made. It's becoming clear that you're not interested in actually defending your original comments, and just want to play the victim.

Now you are calling me a fake victim? Literally every one of your posts is nothing more than a personal attack. Why not be civil, instead? Why not actually discuss the points I made, instead of this dishonest and aggressive behavior?

Did your parents not teach you that, if you don't have anything nice to say, then say nothing at all?

Your arguments must be pretty weak, if you have to resort to name calling, straw men, and personal attacks.

[vhatever]

You mean "respected scientist doesn't stick around and argue with a known liar".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-inaccurate
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-sc...r-8519f36faf77

Wow, character assassinations theguardian and thinkprogress. ROFLMAO.

Anyway I proved you wrong, They blacklisted people debating him.That's something a cult does, not a scientific body.

Hockey stick diagram
NOAA refusing to fully release their data for outside scrutiny.
Blacklsiting people that can't beat in debates
Character assassinations a plenty.

It's a great cult, but science it is not.

[Endus]

Now you are calling me a fake victim? Literally every one of your posts is nothing more than a personal attack. Why not be civil, instead? Why not actually discuss the points I made, instead of this dishonest and aggressive behavior?

I dealt with your points, in detail, waaaay back here; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post46402624

You've played the victim ever since by inventing a "personal attack" that was, and remains, entirely fictional.

Unless you respond with any substance, this is the last I'm entertaining your attempt to derail the thread, which I'm convinced is deliberate at this point.

[Noomz]

I imagine most familiar with the "anti-SJW" community are familiar with the situation that occurred with German-Swedish Youtuber Rage After Storm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHa4db3hA0

Without getting too much into it because race threads are forbidden. She cited the Daily Stormer and when a few other fellow Youtubers tried to open up dialogue with her, she accused them of "virtue signalling" (a word that has lost all meaning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI

A decent video on the examination of human genetics and diversity.

We all know conservative and certain "libertarian" "skeptics" have been climate change denialists (all while claiming to be playing devil's advocate), but I'm also starting to notice a reemergence of evolution-denial increasing in the comment section of various "anti-SJW" Youtubers.

@Theodarzna @Yvaelle @Skroe @Connal

Now I mostly disavowed myself from most "anti-SJW" Youtubers a while ago, I still watch the Amazing Atheist, Kraut and Tea and Chris Ray Gun from time to time but metaphorically speaking, I spit the red pill out before realizing I was never really in the Matrix to begin with.

My major fear is that'll we'll see a emergence of a more right-aligned "Skeptic community" and a reemergence of a more authoritarian-philosphied conservative movement.

(Mods feel free to lock this if this thread goes against the rules or if it becomes ridiculously toxic)

Cliques and closed internet communities breed ignorance, hate and bigotry. You tubers who think they matter because they put videos on the internet are part of that problem, because they have zero authority and zero qualifications. Their only ability is that they say something with conviction.
The sound we stop giving a fuck about YouTube the sooner society as a whole will stop declining into the dark ages again.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you are calling me a fake victim? Literally every one of your posts is nothing more than a personal attack. Why not be civil, instead? Why not actually discuss the points I made, instead of this dishonest and aggressive behavior?

Did your parents not teach you that, if you don't have anything nice to say, then say nothing at all?

Your arguments must be pretty weak, if you have to resort to name calling, straw men, and personal attacks.

You really, really can't take the high ground on this...

[Endus]

Wow, character assassinations theguardian and thinkprogress. ROFLMAO.

Anyway I proved you wrong, They blacklisted people debating him.That's something a cult does, not a scientific body.

No, you provided a single interview segment that didn't confirm anything, and doesn't support your claim of "blacklisting" either.

Hockey stick diagram
NOAA refusing to fully release their data for outside scrutiny.
Blacklsiting people that can't beat in debates
Character assassinations a plenty.

It's a great cult, but science it is not.

Again, this is just baseless nonsense.

You want science? I don't have to misrepresent short news segments. Because I've got actual science on my side;

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-change/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#f6b262c4ff71

[Noomz]

Wow, character assassinations theguardian and thinkprogress. ROFLMAO.

Anyway I proved you wrong, They blacklisted people debating him.That's something a cult does, not a scientific body.

Hockey stick diagram
NOAA refusing to fully release their data for outside scrutiny.
Blacklsiting people that can't beat in debates
Character assassinations a plenty.

It's a great cult, but science it is not.

What's a cult? I'm just jumping in here, haven't really read the previous stuff.
If I go in and argue that Santa is real you can't beat me either, because my entire argument is based on something that cannot be proven and thus not be disproven. There's no discussion in a situation like that.

[vhatever]

What's a cult? I'm just jumping in here, haven't really read the previous stuff.
If I go in and argue that Santa is real you can't beat me either, because my entire argument is based on something that cannot be proven and thus not be disproven. There's no discussion in a situation like that.

Climate alarmism. The modern day doomsayers.

[Deleted]

The left has been just as anti science for about a good couple of decades now. I mean look at trans people. Nope instead we make up pseudo science to explain it being ok that suddenly gender and sex are different even though they mutilate their body to try to make their sex match their gender. Numerous other examples of the anti science on the left. This is not a one political sided thing. Both sides have crazies. Problem is the left is getting more and more violent if you don't buy into their crazy.

Infracted - Forbidden Topics

Name one more of these numerous examples.

[Noomz]

Climate alarmism. The modern day doomsayers.

I disagree. People are living right now with clear changes in climate. The climate IS changing. To not be responsible about it and improve our way of life is simply complacent and selfish. There is no downside to making sure our planet remains habitable. We have nothing to lose on caring for our planet and improving society. Nothing at all.
To sit by as things around you are blatantly changing for the worse and still saying it's not real is willful ignorance at work. Lazy, selfish, willful ignorance.

[vhatever]

I disagree. People are living right now with clear changes in climate. The climate IS changing. To not be responsible about it and improve our way of life is simply complacent and selfish. There is no downside to making sure our planet remains habitable. We have nothing to lose on caring for our planet and improving society. Nothing at all.
To sit by as things around you are blatantly changing for the worse and still saying it's not real is willful ignorance at work. Lazy, selfish, willful ignorance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

[Dougie Cooper]

so, are you trying to say that transpeople have a mental issue or are lying? because that's pretty bad if you are.

you can't believe this gender bullshit and support transpeople at the same time. i will continue supporting transpeople.

Not to continue further down the forbidden topics rabbit hole or anything (haven't read farther in the thread at this point, admittedly), but as a trans person, I don't think gender studies "disprove" my existence or my trans-ness. I'm a trans man, I've always felt more like a guy than a girl, and I take hormones and have had top surgery so that my outsides match how I feel on the inside.

However, this does not mean that I've suddenly stopped loving things that I loved before my transition that are more "traditionally feminine." Sailor Moon is still my favorite show of all time, I love sparkly jewelry, and I actually intend on learning how to knit (mostly to make cute plushies).

My liking things that are "traditionally masculine" (and I actually can't think of what those are at the moment aside from... uh... Power Rangers and comfortable clothes with many pockets?) is not what led me to the conclusion that I am transgender. I feel masculine. I feel like a man, and I've felt like my gender doesn't match my assigned sex since I was very young. Since my transition, I've become more confident and outspoken, and less emotionally sensitive - more like my true self.

I appreciate that you are concerned about supporting trans people like me. We absolutely can use all the support we can get. With all due respect though, and I truly do not meant to be rude in saying this, I think you're approaching this the wrong way. There is merit to those studies, and as far as I can tell, gender studies aren't meant to disprove that trans people exist or that we're sick. Yes, this is all anecdotal for me, but your points were anecdotal as well, so I'd say mine have just as much merit.

If I get infracted for this, then I understand, as I know it's a forbidden topic. I see a lot of presumably cisgender people talk about what it means to be trans on here though, and I feel like I should be able to have a say in the matter as an Actual Real Life Trans Person.

... and no, I don't believe in "72 genders" as someone else said, but I do believe there's such a thing as being gender queer or non-binary.

[Endus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Ivar Giaever, a physicist with no training in climate science whatsoever.

Also, like Roy Spencer, affiliated with the Heartland Institute, the same think tank that once pushed the idea that smoking was healthy and has since shifted to climate change denial.

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-gi...scientist.html

Here's a tip; when you have to keep quoting individual scientists who aren't respected in the field, rather than the thousands of climate scientists working in climate science, chances are your position is ridiculous. It's literally a conspiracy theory, like the flat-earther stuff. I could cite a geologist who's a flat-earther, it doesn't make that nonsense credible.

[Akainakali]

Trickle down economic is not an actual theory. Not one single economist, or political candidate, has ever suggested doing this, or anything of the sort. Supply side economics, the actual theory painted as trickle down, does NOT rely on taxing the rich less, it relies on taxing EVERYONE less. The goal of the economic theory, is to create more revenue, via growing the economy. The method for this is reducing regulations, and leaving more money in the economy, and out of the hands of government. It has nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich while everyone else gets fucked". You are literally falling for 30 year old liberal spin, that wasn't even believed by those who spun it that way 30 years ago.

Also, this theory is 4-0, in American history. Every time it was tried (Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush2), it resulted in MORE revenue to the government, and an economic boom.

So let me see.

First off, if you think you can draw a straight line between a tax cut and an economic boom, I'd have to say your grasp of economics is no better than your grasp of the other issues.

Coolidge was president until about a year before the 1929 stock market crash, was anti-government regulations and cut taxes on the wealthy. How well did that work out? I seem to remember something called the Great Depression happening shortly after his term.

There was also a massive disparity in the segments of society that benefits of Coolridge's tax cut accrued to and wealth inequalities hit a peak just before the Great Depression, that we are now approaching again.

I assume you will probably claim that since the Great Depression didn't happen while he was president, that it's unfair to blame him for it. Because actions that affect the economy always have instantaneous results after all and never take time to work through the economy.

Bush2, hmmm. After his tax cuts, didn't we go from a budget surplus and being on track to pay off the deficit, to massive deficits? Wasn't his deregulation, followed by a financial crash that nearly caused a second Great Depression and was only averted by massive economic stimulus? It's almost like we'd seen this pattern before...

Funny how conservatives are quick to take credit for anything positive that happens to the economy and never seem to take responsibility for anything bad that happens.

Reagan. First, he was president as the US was coming out of the '70 which was NOT a good decade for the US as a whole, so some sort of economic boom was pretty much inevitable. Economist speak of a Boom-Bust CYCLE for a reason. Second, the Reagan "boom"'s foundations were laid by Jimmy Carter taking the political hit and cranking up the interest rates to help kill the inflation that was a major economic problem.

JFK and tax cuts, well "you keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it does."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ide-tax-cutter

Frankly from what I've observed over the past 40 years or so. Republican administrations create problems that the following Democratic administrations have to fix.

As far as "supply side economics" go, well the famous "Laffer Curve" that this is supposedly based on has ABSOLUTELY NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE behind it. It's based off of a theoretical observation, the self evident point that if you tax things excessively, it discourages whatever.

NONE of the supposed tax cuts have tried to actually determine what point on the curve the excessive taxes are going to produce this behavior. Nor that we are at it and they have definitely never considered that we are well BELOW that point.

The other blindly obvious point that this idiotic economic theory has never bothered with, is that it inevitably is going to cut government income in the short term at least, and likely for as long as the tax cuts persist.

Fundamentally it's disingenuous plan, because the cut of government income and it's ability to provide services is what supply side economics really provides, not some theoretical improvement in the economy.

The "benefits" of SSE would have to be orders of magnitude greater, in order for the cuts to actually generate the improved income it claims will be the result.

[vhatever]

Ivar Giaever, a physicist with no training in climate science whatsoever.

Also, like Roy Spencer, affiliated with the Heartland Institute, the same think tank that once pushed the idea that smoking was healthy and has since shifted to climate change denial.

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-gi...scientist.html

Here's a tip; when you have to keep quoting individual scientists who aren't respected in the field, rather than the thousands of climate scientists working in climate science, chances are your position is ridiculous. It's literally a conspiracy theory, like the flat-earther stuff. I could cite a geologist who's a flat-earther, it doesn't make that nonsense credible.

I see a lot of character assassination but not a lot of attacking arguments. certainly seem like a very scientific person.

[Narwal]

And your work to disprove their theories is where?

Let's setup the argument with a couple of facts I would like to either agree with, or not.

1) Human reproduction requires one set of female reproductive organs and one set of male reproductive organs to propagate our existence.
- Based on this fact, it can be stated that natures design intends for us to have one of those sets of organs, and that existence of those organs defines what humans have called your sex or (until recently) gender.

2) We acknowledge the physical body as designed through the blueprint of our dna, and built by chemistry.
- We are all constructed this way, we don't control these interactions in any form naturally.

3) We acknowledge that chemicals within the human body direct everything going on inside us. They make us happy, angry, powerful, weak... they affect every feeling we have.

Now clearly, there's no argument against the notion that some people with male organs may have imbalances of chemicals directing them that are intended for a person of the female body, or vice versa. Many people based on these facts are of the notion that this is a physical deformity, and if you look to fact #1 above, you could make the argument that this is correct. What the medical field has done in the past to correct his, is try to correct chemical imbalances or mismatches with your physical sex. What seems to be the goal of some today in gender studies, is to validate the existence of these mismatches as intended design, and not ailments to be fixed.

If you look at how this condition has typically been treated with chemical imbalance therapy, reproduction was still possible. A male who feels like a female, could still get a female pregnant. Treating the condition in the opposite fashion, like some want today, destroys the ability to reproduce. So it makes most natural sense, to treat sex/gender confusion as a chemical imbalance in the body, making someone feel like something they are not.

In this case, it's not about denying the science of gender, it's about picking the most appropriate fix to the problem based on the laws of nature, the most important of which is continuing on the species. It is possible that in the future the medical field will be able to fix you in whichever way you like... either by giving you a new set of functional reproductive organs, or simply by correcting the chemical imbalances. As of now, only one solution really exists, and the other is just a cosmetic fix, which takes you out of the equation of reproduction.

[Endus]

I see a lot of character assassination but not a lot of attacking arguments. certainly seem like a very scientific person.

The link includes detailed and specific deconstructions of Giaever's claims and how they are deeply flawed and misrepresent the facts. I don't actually believe you even looked at the link, or you'd have seen that.

[Dougie Cooper]

The human race is nowhere close to dying out, so there's no reason to use procreation as an argument. Furthermore, artificial insemination is a thing, so we can rule that out. Finally, the majority of humans do not identify as transgender, so why should our small percent of the species have to go through "chemical" therapies instead of just being allowed to transition? What harm does it do to cisgender people if trans people like myself are treated the way we feel we should be treated?

[dope_danny]

Remember when skeptic meant disproving spiritualist con artists with the use of hard science?

[Dougie Cooper]

I think it is that a lot of people still have not gotten the concept of staying out of other people's business.

Unfortunate, but true. All I want is for people not to be jerks to each other - if it isn't harming someone else, why do you (general you here, of course) care what someone's doing with their lives?

Remember when skeptic meant disproving spiritualist con artists with the use of hard science?

To quote All in the Family, "Those were the days."