Gawker "journalist": Arrest climate change disbelievers! (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

So awesome.

Thanks, Obama! gets better every day. What a ####### useless rag Gawker and its little acolyte sites are.

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

 

[Abraham]

Isn't a rag a newspaper or magazine, not an online site?

 

[rockaction]

Isn't a rag a newspaper or magazine, not an online site?

Yeah. But it's the connotation that I'm getting at. It's a rag.

 

[Abraham]

Oh, ok. I tend to agree that arresting people for being ignorant or stupid is a slippery slope.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm withholding my opinion until Anonymous releases the e-mails between these tobacco doesn't cause cancer global warming deniers (easy to get confused -- it's the same people!) and the guys cutting the checks.

Probably best to just lock these shills on the wrong side of the door and let the Alien have its way with them.

 

[drunken slob]

Not a religion

 

[Ilov80s]

A Climate Inquisition? Should we put Mr. Weinstein in charge of it? Would the irony be lost on him?

 

[Treynwreck3]

How about arresting that kook Torcello for trying to incite a panic riot with ridiculously flawed assumptions and correlations akin to yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.

 

[matuski]

How do you end up reading this stuff?

Oh, ok. I tend to agree that arresting people for being ignorant or stupid is a slippery slope.

 

[rockaction]

How do you end up reading this stuff?

I just take the most dystopian, bizarre, authoritarian stuff a leftist would say and I Google it.

Or... I found it in the comments section of a trusted linker at another site.

Probably the latter.

 

[Fennis]

thanks for the link to Gawker, I also found out that Sea Lion Pup's First Day of High School Ends in Detention

 

[rockaction]

thanks for the link to Gawker, I also found out that Sea Lion Pup's First Day of High School Ends in Detention

Written by Hudson Hongo.

 

[NCCommish]

So awesome.

Thanks, Obama! gets better every day. What a ####### useless rag Gawker and its little acolyte sites are.

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

The decision in Italy was compete and utter crap. Any opinion built off that is crap squared. You guys know where I stand on climate change but these guys are just idiots who don't come close to representing any majority.

 

[Fennis]

Local Idiot To Post Comment On Internet

 

[Ilov80s]

So awesome.

Thanks, Obama! gets better every day. What a ####### useless rag Gawker and its little acolyte sites are.

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

The decision in Italy was compete and utter crap. Any opinion built off that is crap squared. You guys know where I stand on climate change but these guys are just idiots who don't come close to representing any majority.

Following Italy's lead in anything legal or political is a step in the wrong direction to put it mildly.

 

[squistion]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

It's not? Because I'm seeing more and more of these types of calls (articles/blogs/whatever) from the left.

And from none other than Al Gore himself - your leader and face of the climate change movement.

 

[rockaction]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

Noice. Who said that? Calm down and breathe. The little watermelon I pointed out is himself and is more emblematic of Gawker than the left.

Also, this comes from the guy who posts Sally Kohn articles as opinion masterpieces?



eta* Also, this stems from the Italian decision and a few PhD's who decided to call for the same thing back in mid-'14 or something. It's your crazies. You deal with it.

 

[matuski]

How do you end up reading this stuff?

I just take the most dystopian, bizarre, authoritarian stuff a leftist would say and I Google it.

Or... I found it in the comments section of a trusted linker at another site.

Probably the latter.

Interesting.. I have never ended up there. Ever. Until now.. thanks.

 

[rockaction]

How do you end up reading this stuff?

I just take the most dystopian, bizarre, authoritarian stuff a leftist would say and I Google it.

Or... I found it in the comments section of a trusted linker at another site.

Probably the latter.

Interesting.. I have never ended up there. Ever. Until now.. thanks.

Huh. Gawker is under the same aegis as Deadspin, only it's socio-political. Thought it was pretty famous.

eta* That's where the snarky "Thanks, Obama" thing either originated from or is most prevalent. For example, you cite a statistic that purports to show things are improving in America, and you offer a sarcastic response directed at revealing the right-wing mindset towards defeatism. You go "Thanks, Obama," thereby highlighting both the ignorance of the speaker and the blind hatred right-wingers have towards the President. Or at least you purport to do it.

 

[squistion]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

Noice. Who said that? Calm down and breathe. The little watermelon I pointed out is himself and is more emblematic of Gawker than the left.

Also, this comes from the guy who posts Sally Kohn articles as opinion masterpieces?

I never suggested what Kohn said was an opinion masterpiece. And I didn't start a thread about it either. It was her point of view and I agreed with the logic, which no one refuted very well IMO.

 

[rockaction]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

Noice. Who said that? Calm down and breathe. The little watermelon I pointed out is himself and is more emblematic of Gawker than the left.

Also, this comes from the guy who posts Sally Kohn articles as opinion masterpieces?

I never suggested what Kohn said was an opinion masterpiece. And I didn't start a thread about it either. It was her point of view and I agreed with the logic, which no one refuted very well IMO.

I think you imputed a lot of things to my intention in starting this thread that really aren't there. I'm not silly enough to think this is emblematic of anything but the radical left, which is why I use the term "leftist." This little watermelon ("green on the outside, red on the inside" as the old joke goes) and the professors that advocated this back in the middle of last year deserve to be called out as the journalistic twits and totalitarians that their little imaginations betray in words. See this author's little kick spit brat performance in the comments.

And I take it seriously because Gawker has a huge readership and massive, massive funding from the left.

So it's a fair shot, and a fair thread.

If it's an uncomfortable truth, so be it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And I take it seriously because Gawker has ... massive, massive funding from the left.

Gawker is a for-profit company that made about $7 million in profits on about $45 million in revenue last year.

 

[rockaction]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

It's not? Because I'm seeing more and more of these types of calls (articles/blogs/whatever) from the left.

And from none other than Al Gore himself - your leader and face of the climate change movement.

Cap-and-trade and political favoritism toward green energy are different than going after funders and scientists and jailing them under negligence standards. One is politically mistaken, the other is totalitarian.

But did you know that that website has its own "climate change denier" basketball-style bracket to fill out?

 

[rockaction]

And I take it seriously because Gawker has ... massive, massive funding from the left.

Gawker is a for-profit company that made about $7 million in profits on about $45 million in revenue last year.

Ah, the plot thickens! Thanks for the correction, it's crowd funded and ven cap funded, which certainly, um, means there's no political impetus behind the funding.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And I take it seriously because Gawker has ... massive, massive funding from the left.

Gawker is a for-profit company that made about $7 million in profits on about $45 million in revenue last year.

Ah, the plot thickens! Thanks for the correction, it's crowd funded and ven cap funded, which certainly, um, means there's no political impetus behind the funding.

As I understand it Nick Denton funded the entire thing himself via his own money and plowing profits back into the company. And hasn't taken any investor funding to date.

 

[rockaction]

And I take it seriously because Gawker has ... massive, massive funding from the left.

Gawker is a for-profit company that made about $7 million in profits on about $45 million in revenue last year.

Ah, the plot thickens! Thanks for the correction, it's crowd funded and ven cap funded, which certainly, um, means there's no political impetus behind the funding.

As I understand it Nick Denton funded the entire thing himself via his own money and plowing profits back into the company. And hasn't taken any investor funding to date.

Essentially true, but I kind of remember this story. That's where it comes from.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gawker-media-raising-money-2015-1

 

[squistion]

This is the type of thread we used to see started by Jim11. Good to see someone has finally stepped up to the plate to fill the void. And so representative of what people on the left think.

Noice. Who said that? Calm down and breathe. The little watermelon I pointed out is himself and is more emblematic of Gawker than the left.

Also, this comes from the guy who posts Sally Kohn articles as opinion masterpieces?

I never suggested what Kohn said was an opinion masterpiece. And I didn't start a thread about it either. It was her point of view and I agreed with the logic, which no one refuted very well IMO.

I think you imputed a lot of things to my intention in starting this thread that really aren't there. I'm not silly enough to think this is emblematic of anything but the radical left, which is why I use the term "leftist." This little watermelon ("green on the outside, red on the inside" as the old joke goes) and the professors that advocated this back in the middle of last year deserve to be called out as the journalistic twits and totalitarians that their little imaginations betray in words. See this author's little kick spit brat performance in the comments.

And I take it seriously because Gawker has a huge readership and massive, massive funding from the left.

So it's a fair shot, and a fair thread.

If it's an uncomfortable truth, so be it.

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

 

[rockaction]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Oh, ok. I tend to agree that arresting people for being ignorant or stupid is a slippery slope.

It is ignorant and stupid to advocate arresting people for being ignorant or stupid. So anyone advocating that should be careful what they wish for.

 

[NCCommish]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

Plenty of jail fans on the far right just for different sins. When we get to the fringes there are few differences really.

 

[rockaction]

Except it is not even emblematic of the radical left. Again similar to Jim11 doing his cut-and-paste from some far right site and saying "Thanks Obama" (which oddly has a familiar ring to it after reading the OP). And I could find right wing lunatics who say crazy things and start a thread about that too, but they wouldn't be representative of what people on the radical right are saying either.

But it is emblematic of Gawker. And I'm not so sure that you're correct, either. The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Thanks, Gawker.

Plenty of jail fans on the far right just for different sins. When we get to the fringes there are few differences really.

God, don't I know it. I totally agree.

 

[Fennis]

Next can we find out where Pérez Hilton stands on tax policy?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Plenty of jail fans on the far right just for different sins. When we get to the fringes there are few differences really.

Ever notice that the people with the most horrible political opinions, left or right, tend to be precisely the people who are most enthusiastic about them?

It doesn't seem to work like that in other areas. The people who don't know the first thing about stamp collecting, for example, hardly spend any time at all arguing about stamp collecting, judging others by their stamp-collecting habits, etc.

 

[jon_mx]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

 

[joffer]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

 

[jon_mx]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

I think it is foolish to believe one side is right and one side is wrong. Of course there are blow-hards on the right who call it junk science and disbelieve everything. But there are just as many on the left who point to every change in nature as being the result of greenhouse gases. I think if you really break it down, most people here who follow the subject actually agree on a lot more than they disagree on. But there is still a lot of rhetoric which inflames the subject.

 

[jon_mx]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

 

[joffer]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

your assumption that your more knowledgable than someone on a subject is what's funny

 

[MaxThreshold]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

 

[jon_mx]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

your assumption that your more knowledgable than someone on a subject is what's funny

I have followed this subject fairly closely for twenty years. I am comfortable with my relative knowledge on the subject. I really don't see too many people here on the pro-warming side who debate the subject with much depth of knowledge. It is mostly just a few jokers who come in and mock.

 

[joffer]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

coming from you, that means a lot

 

[jon_mx]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

I put up a list of about seven levels which categorized beliefs on the subject, and he was actually only about a 5. So not really a full blown loon, but just one who debates from the peanut gallery.

 

[joffer]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

I put up a list of about seven levels which categorized beliefs on the subject, and he was actually only about a 5. So not really a full blown loon, but just one who debates from the peanut gallery.

could you repost this list? I like to have goals.

 

[jon_mx]

Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Can anyone here do that, based on their own knowledge of the subject? Some might think they can, but are they self-calibrating properly?

Climate science is hard. Developing any genuine expertise on the subject takes an awful lot of work.

I consider myself better informed on the subject than the average person, but I know that I'd be way out of my depth trying to form conclusions on the topic based on the science itself -- the data being collected and analyzed, and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent idea about which side is likely to be right. Many of the details are uncertain, but on the basic point of whether humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, there is a strong scientific consensus of the sort that has hardly ever been wrong. It is rational to believe that the consensus is very likely to be right this time as well.

But what exactly is the concensus? I think there is concsensus that man is causing at least some of the problems, and perhaps even most of the problems. But is there consensus on this concept from the IPCC that there is somehow a 2 degree rise tipping point that must be avoided? Is there consensus that the computer models are accurate? Is there consensus that most natural disasters are caused by man-made CO2? There are a lot of claims out there which go far beyond what the real consensus is and they are put out there under the guise that they are part of the consensus.

 

[jon_mx]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

I put up a list of about seven levels which categorized beliefs on the subject, and he was actually only about a 5. So not really a full blown loon, but just one who debates from the peanut gallery.

could you repost this list? I like to have goals.

I am not sure even the smartest person on earth has even mastered this site's search function.

 

[Ilov80s]

The so-called 'deniers' (who aren't really deniers) on this forum are more knowledgeable than those who blindly believe whatever cockamamie thing that comes out of the mouth of the pro-fear-mongering side. Really not too many here on the pro-warming side here who can articulate which things are soundly established and which things have been pulled out of the #### of some rabid advocate pushing an agenda.

Exhibit One. Joffer is skeptical of a some of the claims and is not a full-blown loon, but never artculates an arguement on the subject.

Except he actually is a full-blown loon on this subject.

I put up a list of about seven levels which categorized beliefs on the subject, and he was actually only about a 5. So not really a full blown loon, but just one who debates from the peanut gallery.

could you repost this list? I like to have goals.

I am not sure even the smartest person on earth has even mastered this site's search function.

If Gas Money hasn't figured it out, clearly nobody can.

 

[squistion]

The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Wat?

Care to give some examples of that? I suppose if you want to count Woodrow Wilson as part of the radical left, OK (but that seems a stretch 100 years later to lump him with that group). However I am not aware of many historical examples since WW2 where actions by the left have resulted in people being jailed for opposing opinions. Joseph McCarty and friends certainly weren't radical left, and while the Civil Rights marchers and Vietnam protestors arguably were for their time, they were the ones who were jailed. And while many here consider the ACLU radical left, they have been at the forefront of defending people jailed/fined/arrested, etc. for expressing dissent.

 

[Fennis]

The radical left loves jailing dissent. It's what its function seems to be since the early 20th century. It loves to listen in and jail, fine, arrest, etc.

Wat?

Care to give some examples of that? I suppose if you want to count Woodrow Wilson as part of the radical left, OK (but that seems a stretch 100 years later to lump him with that group). However I am not aware of many historical examples since WW2 where actions by the left have resulted in people being jailed for opposing opinions. Joseph McCarty and friends certainly weren't radical left, and while the Civil Rights marchers and Vietnam protestors arguably were for their time, they were the ones who were jailed. And while many here consider the ACLU radical left, they have been at the forefront of defending people jailed/fined/arrested, etc. for expressing dissent.

he's going to bring up Cuba and Venezuela