... and so it begins.

[angrydude]

It depends on the issue, but I happen to think to malign and ridicule is more effective and efficient in many cases. Take spurraider's example above re: cigarettes. We didn't drastically reduce the number of smokers by having a deep, national conversation about scientific conclusions that smoking kills, decades after the science was decided. We made smoking socially unacceptable by making smokers feel stupid and guilt-ridden. There's still some hangers-on, but no politician would dare introduce a bill to re-allow smoking on an airplane.

Same approach should be taken with climate change deniers. They should be ridiculed and demonized as dangers to themselves and their neighbors. The results will be the same.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with all those taxes placed on them.

[spurraider21]

while there is some validity to it, it's starting to get repe ive hearing about how the left has to be nicer to conservatives ... i agree that productive political discourse has been non-existent, but people need to stop being soft pussies, demanding that their opposition treat them with kiddie gloves... do they need their own political safe space?

so when somebody says "u hate gay marriage because ur a phone" and leaves the convo at that, i definitely understand that it's not productive... but it's not like most conservatives are really open to having a discussion about it without it boiling down to " s make the choice to be " etc.

its also incredibly lazy to say the left lost the election because LOL safe spaces

[baseline bum]

So the talking snake is a better origin theory than the big bang?

[spurraider21]

So the talking snake is a better origin theory than the big bang?

yes and the stars are all just lesser, smaller suns that will one day fall onto to the earth during the revelation

[DMC]

Scientist: your life ambition is to disprove another scientist's theory

Religious: Your life ambition is to prove what was written over 2000 years ago to be true

[midnightpulp]

It depends on the issue, but I happen to think to malign and ridicule is more effective and efficient in many cases. Take spurraider's example above re: cigarettes. We didn't drastically reduce the number of smokers by having a deep, national conversation about scientific conclusions that smoking kills, decades after the science was decided. We made smoking socially unacceptable by making smokers feel stupid and guilt-ridden. There's still some hangers-on, but no politician would dare introduce a bill to re-allow smoking on an airplane.

Same approach should be taken with climate change deniers. They should be ridiculed and demonized as dangers to themselves and their neighbors. The results will be the same.

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, phobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage, protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

[Will Hunting]

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, phobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

This 1000x

Hiilary herself publicly referred to Trump supporters as deplorable. When the did calling people deplorable become a way to get support and unite a country?

I think people are also tired of seeing terrorist attacks happen here and in Europe and before anyone even has time to say "My heart goes out to the victims and their families", there are hoards of liberals spamming social media with "You shouldn't blame Islam for the actions of a few people," as if that's a lot more important than the terrorist attack that just killed a bunch of innocent people.

[rmt]

Rational people have no choice but to engage people they disagree with. The left has to be better at explaining and talking. Don't give up.

You will like this:


:ROFL

Hahahaha - this guy is exactly right. I'd go even further to say that one has to build a relationship with someone to truly get listened to. I'll share one of my experiences campaigning for Trump. I have a very close Christian friend - we go way back - our daughters are best friends so you can imagine the number of hours we've spent together as they grew up. She has a condo in Doral on the edge of Trump's golf course - sold to her by the developer as "golf course view." Of course, Trump decides to plant trees on his golf course (which block her view) and pisses her off. She rails and rails against him (because he has affected the value of her condo). I, of course, tried to convince her that it wasn't Trump's fault (he has every right to do whatever he wants with his property) and to vote for him but she was completely turned off. I continued to add her email address to all the emails I sent out to everyone I knew. Last I heard she wasn't voting for either - just down ballot. I'll have to ask her if she eventually voted for him.

Now compare that to the insults and name-calling I've received here on this board just because I have opinions different from yours - and you expect me to be receptive to what you have to say? RG, I agree with you about the engagement and Splits, I respectfully disagree with the malignment and ridicule. IMO, no one will listen when you ridicule them.

[DMC]

while there is some validity to it, it's starting to get repe ive hearing about how the left has to be nicer to conservatives ... i agree that productive political discourse has been non-existent, but people need to stop being soft pussies, demanding that their opposition treat them with kiddie gloves... do they need their own political safe space?

so when somebody says "u hate gay marriage because ur a phone" and leaves the convo at that, i definitely understand that it's not productive... but it's not like most conservatives are really open to having a discussion about it without it boiling down to " s make the choice to be " etc.

its also incredibly lazy to say the left lost the election because LOL safe spaces

It's lazy to say "most" anything since you have no idea.

[Splits]

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, phobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage, protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

That's why I said "depends on the issue" Climate change happens to fall in that category

[Splits]

Hahahaha - this guy is exactly right. I'd go even further to say that one has to build a relationship with someone to truly get listened to. I'll share one of my experiences campaigning for Trump. I have a very close Christian friend - we go way back - our daughters are best friends so you can imagine the number of hours we've spent together as they grew up. She has a condo in Doral on the edge of Trump's golf course - sold to her by the developer as "golf course view." Of course, Trump decides to plant trees on his golf course (which block her view) and pisses her off. She rails and rails against him (because he has affected the value of her condo). I, of course, tried to convince her that it wasn't Trump's fault (he has every right to do whatever he wants with his property) and to vote for him but she was completely turned off. I continued to add her email address to all the emails I sent out to everyone I knew. Last I heard she wasn't voting for either - just down ballot. I'll have to ask her if she eventually voted for him.

Now compare that to the insults and name-calling I've received here on this board just because I have opinions different from yours - and you expect me to be receptive to what you have to say? RG, I agree with you about the engagement and Splits, I respectfully disagree with the malignment and ridicule. IMO, no one will listen when you ridicule them.

I don't want you to listen to me on climate change. I want you to feel like the idiot you are for denying science and complaining about your kid's teacher teaching science in science class.

[midnightpulp]

This 1000x

Hiilary herself publicly referred to Trump supporters as deplorable. When the did calling people deplorable become a way to get support and unite a country?

I think people are also tired of seeing terrorist attacks happen here and in Europe and before anyone even has time to say "My heart goes out to the victims and their families", there are hoards of liberals spamming social media with "You shouldn't blame Islam for the actions of a few people," as if that's a lot more important than the terrorist attack that just killed a bunch of innocent people.

Yeah, SJWs are just as racist and bigoted as their alt-right counterparts, maybe not consciously so, but there's definitely some animosity lurking deep beneath the purple hair and man buns there.

Example:

Downtrodden urban, drug addicted black guy commits crime (or behaves in some other unpleasant manner).

SJW response: "We have to deeply investigate the systematic racial, social, and economic injustices that left him in a dire and hopeless situation where violence was his only alternative."

Downtrodden rural, drug addicted white guy commits crime (or behaves in some other unpleasant manner).

SJW response: "Dumb redneck. Maybe if he would've put down the Bible and got an education, he wouldn't have found himself in that situation."

And then they tell these people, who are victims of those same social and economic injustices as minorities to, "check their privilege." It's totally in' insulting.

Before the Left lost its mind, they were the champion of Southern and Midwest working class whites who were getting screwed by bouton's "BigCorp," along with all the other poor and downtrodden victims of the "system," regardless of race, gender, or creed. Now their attention is focused on nothing but minorities, women, and LGBTQ. No surprise Southern and Middle American lower-middle class whites told them to go themselves, which they vocalized through Trump. And the Left's mentality in this regard has even alienated white male college graduates, a demo which Trump surprisingly won.

I said the Left has an advertising problem, and I think BLM was the campaign that finally pushed that demographic over the edge. Addressing the issue of police violence is indeed a noble cause, but again, advertising, and the BLM approach was very alienating to people who would otherwise have been on their side.

[RandomGuy]

it's not a matter of belief. that's not how science works. the big bang theory arose because it's currently the only working theory that fits all the evidence. scientists dont gather once a year to "vote" if they believe in big bang theory, anthropogenic global warming ,etc. that's now how "consensus" happens.

scientists in a given field perform experiments, gather data, and analyze it. they publish their findings in peer reviewed papers. when 97% of all such papers (backed by evidence, math, and their worked is checked over) point towards man-made global warming, that becomes a working theory. and the people writing these papers are experts in those particular fields: geologists, atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, etc.

so if a guy like ben carson, an accomplished neurosurgeon, starts giving his opinion on climate change, it's not really considered. similarly, i wouldnt ask stephen hawking to perform surgery if i needed it.

people who study climate largely come to one conclusion, and it's not just a bunch of american scientists bought off by their universities, it's a global thing. even climate scientists in in china, where their government doesn't give a single about environmentalism, have the same scientific conclusions. unless a scientist is employed by a company (like anybody in the heartland ins ute), there's no reason to doubt their credibility

i know it's hard, but to really take and understand scientific concepts, you HAVE to separate the science from the politics/policies. for decades, scientists were telling us that cigarettes were linked to cancer, and people like yourself doubted them because they figured scientists were biased and basically politicians who wanted to put regulations on cigarettes. how'd that one turn out?

+1

It is sad to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-science undertones in so much preferred policy by the GOP.

[boutons_deux]

+1

It is sad to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-science undertones in so much preferred policy by the GOP.

the entire Repug/VRWC/right-wing-hate-media strategy is to con 10Ms of stupid, "religious" Americans with god/guns/gays/Muslims LIES, and it works.

Those 10Ms are still reliably dumb enough to think Don The Con gives a about them, and will help them after decades of being screwed by Repug/VRWC/BigCorp strategy.