scientists are nerds. you can believe in pollution and still not give a fuck about it. it's called not being a nerd, watch a tv show about it
Printable View
scientists are nerds. you can believe in pollution and still not give a fuck about it. it's called not being a nerd, watch a tv show about it
IRONY ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
What bothers me is how the right (including the media) eats up their own "victim" narratives, and nobody on that side asks a single question. Whites, males, conservatives, rural residents, Americans born here vs immigrants, are all "victims" and their victimhood is encouraged, stirred up into a mob mentality and used cynically against their interest by ring-wing media, politicians, evangelical leaders, corporate leaders and other elites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
How come many people on the left can instantly see the red flags in right-wing "news," and sees how badly the Republicans especially Trump are screwing over the people that vote for them, serving only very narrow elite interests, and everyone on that side cheers them on like brave freedom fighters?
News flash: The mainstream media are not as monolithically left-leaning as you would like to believe. They're not infallible and they never will be. They try to present the facts as they are and varying points of view (the good quality sources do, anyway) but sometimes drop the ball. This is different from right-wing sources like Fox News and their brethren, who were founded specifically to drive a right-wing agenda, with an intentionally built-in willingness to disregard or even invent facts, with actual journalism a low priority. At least part of the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media is due to the fact that reality has a liberal bias.
lol @ this fuckwad..
you know what he did and why he did it, yet the left stooges of pfa try and call at druff or deflect it to trump.
The guy's a dumbass. It says nothing about "the left."Quote:
Originally Posted by mulva
I'm not talking about the occasional "idiot nobody". I'm talking about the general attitude of mainstream people in the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlySure thing. Its the one that elected the single most anti-science president and vice-president in modern history, gutted the EPA, denies c!imate change, pushed the retarded idea of "clean coal," and pretty much destroyed ever environmental policy they could. If you need dozens more examples, let me know, but the gist is the party that is the most anti-science is the one that puts the anti-science people in power over and over again. Which is the Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Judge parties by who they elect, not by idiot nobodies with no influence on anything.
That's why I keep offering the bet that we can post a question about "Amber Sainty" in post #3 in an arbitrarily-chosen left-leaning Facebook group. If fewer than 51% vote Amber should be considered a woman, I'll lose the bet.
Yet no one will take me up on it.
Why?
Because everyone here knows that the majority of Democrats are now all aboard for this insanity. Not all, but the majority.
This is why I laugh at the haughty "anti-science" accusations from those on the left, as if they are the rational, superior intellectuals who utilize science to make their decisions. They aren't interested in even addressing the anti-science crap going on in their own party. Instead they obsess over Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'm not talking about the occasional "idiot nobody". I'm talking about the general attitude of mainstream people in the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
That's why I keep offering the bet that we can post a question about "Amber Sainty" in post #3 in an arbitrarily-chosen left-leaning Facebook group. If fewer than 51% vote Amber should be considered a woman, I'll lose the bet.
Yet no one will take me up on it.
Why?
Because everyone here knows that the majority of Democrats are now all aboard for this insanity. Not all, but the majority.
This is why I laugh at the haughty "anti-science" accusations from those on the left, as if they are the rational, superior intellectuals who utilize science to make their decisions. They aren't interested in even addressing the anti-science crap going on in their own party. Instead they obsess over Trump.
is your point that both parties are anti-science, and that on the left, you have trans women, and that on the right, you have climate change denial?
While I have no idea wtf goes on in any lefty facebook group, i'd think those lefty groups will be making civil rights arguments, equality arguments, and anti-violence arguments. (I also wouldn;t expect any decent level of discourse in any political facebook group of any sort, so there's that too.) They won't generally be arguing science at all. It's a social issue.
To put it on a par with the brazenly anti-science agenda from the right that's poisoning the environment and making it ever easier for corporations to do so, or as I said earlier, "elected the single most anti-science president and vice-president in modern history, gutted the EPA, denies climate change, pushed the retarded idea of "clean coal," and pretty much destroyed ever environmental policy they could" plus literally dozens more examples if you want them... Yeah, one of those parties is clearly way, way worse on science issues.
You got any peer reviewed science journals to back up your claim that being ok with transgender people is 'anti-science'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'm not talking about the occasional "idiot nobody". I'm talking about the general attitude of mainstream people in the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
That's why I keep offering the bet that we can post a question about "Amber Sainty" in post #3 in an arbitrarily-chosen left-leaning Facebook group. If fewer than 51% vote Amber should be considered a woman, I'll lose the bet.
Yet no one will take me up on it.
Why?
Because everyone here knows that the majority of Democrats are now all aboard for this insanity. Not all, but the majority.
This is why I laugh at the haughty "anti-science" accusations from those on the left, as if they are the rational, superior intellectuals who utilize science to make their decisions. They aren't interested in even addressing the anti-science crap going on in their own party. Instead they obsess over Trump.
I don't think you do. I think you're confusing feelings, beliefs and instincts with science.
They have a term for this type of guy, he’s a real asshole.
Both sides of the political spectrum have them.
Um, I'm not talking about being "ok with transgender people".Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanYou got any peer reviewed science journals to back up your claim that being ok with transgender people is 'anti-science'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I don't think you do. I think you're confusing feelings, beliefs and instincts with science.
I'm actually okay with transgender people, as are many on the right. Real transgender people. Like ones who actually get on hormones long-term and make every effort to appear and live as the other gender. Not delicate flowers like "Amber" who look and act male, yet adopt a female identity because they think it's cool or edgy.
I'm also not okay with transgender people of any type in women's athletics. Opposing that view is definitely anti-science, and if you think otherwise, lol @ you.
I'm willing to make these bets about the majority in any left-leaning social media space being FOR these wacky concepts, just to prove that I'm not attacking a tiny lunatic fringe which is separate from the mainstream left.
Close.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
is your point that both parties are anti-science, and that on the left, you have trans women, and that on the right, you have climate change denial?
My point is that, while I concede that there is a sizable idiotic anti-science contingent on the right, there is also a sizable idiotic anti-science contingent on the left, and it has infected today's left to the point where a lot of these absurd views have become mainstream.
I should also note that I have never attempted to defend or propagate any anti-science views of any kind, including the COVID-19 matter.
The difference is that the right rarely takes the line of, "We're intellectuals, you're dumb rubes", whereas the left takes that line constantly. That annoying air of false superiority really irritates me, because it's absolutely not true. Neither side can claim a consistent adherence to scientific facts shaping their policy.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanYou got any peer reviewed science journals to back up your claim that being ok with transgender people is 'anti-science'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I don't think you do. I think you're confusing feelings, beliefs and instincts with science.
What's up with this statement then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffUm, I'm not talking about being "ok with transgender people".Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
I'm actually okay with transgender people, as are many on the right. Real transgender people. Like ones who actually get on hormones long-term and make every effort to appear and live as the other gender. Not delicate flowers like "Amber" who look and act male, yet adopt a female identity because they think it's cool or edgy.
I'm also not okay with transgender people of any type in women's athletics. Opposing that view is definitely anti-science, and if you think otherwise, lol @ you.
I'm willing to make these bets about the majority in any left-leaning social media space being FOR these wacky concepts, just to prove that I'm not attacking a tiny lunatic fringe which is separate from the mainstream left.
What does this have to do with science?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The question of "Should we treat Amber Pearl Saintly as female?" has to do with science. This is a very different question than, "Should we treat Caitlin Jenner as female?"Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanWhat's up with this statement then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
What does this have to do with science?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
From what we can tell in that pic, "Amber" is no more female than you are. Does not even try to present female, and does not seem to be on any hormones.
Much of the left wants someone treated as female if they claim to be female, and then given all rights females have (such as to play women's sports, allowed in women's only spaces, and be put in women's jails if incarcerated).
How can you say that's not anti-science?
Gender is a scientific fact. There is some (controversial) scientific basis to an argument that one can change genders if they take hormones to make their body chemistry more similar to that of the opposite gender. There is zero scientific basis that one can be female simply because they decide to proclaim they're female.
I am willing to bet that more than 50% of people in a randomly-chosen left-leaning social media group will vote that a person like "Amber" should still be considered female and treated as such.
As I said, anti-science.
Druff if you want to be pro science you seriosuly need to learn the difference between sex and gender. Sex has always been the biological term whereas gender was chosen to describe how you feel.
Yet lots of people use thE term gender exclusively because they are hung up with saying “sex”.
If you want to say you don’t believe in gender and only sex that’s fine. But scientifically gender was never meant to be used to describe biological sex.
You say "always" but this differentiation was made only semi-recently, and it only came into widespread use in the 2010s.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBet
In 2000, if you told someone, "Sex and gender are different", they would have treated you like you were from another planet.
Here, take a look at this article from a the nonpartisan physiology.org site:
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/...iol.00376.2005Quote:
In the journals of the American Physiological Society, gender was first introduced into a title in 1982, whereas sex had been used since the early 1920s. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term sex in APS titles, and today gender more the doubles that of sex. The term gender appears to have undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about sex. This may be because some scientists are sensitive to the verity that discussing sex often means discussing difference and gender may be construed as a less loaded term.
That article was written in 2005, and even acknowledges that it has "undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about sex". Thus, there is no scientific basis in the terminology. The difference in terms sprung from the SJW left which wanted a way to validate those who were transgender. The two terms were used interchangeably until the mid-2000s, and their separation was done to be sensitive, not due to any new scientific discovery.
Because nobody gives a shit, and literally no one on earth with a life outside of the internet places an iota of value on consensus that arise from 'Facebook groups'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'm not talking about the occasional "idiot nobody". I'm talking about the general attitude of mainstream people in the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
That's why I keep offering the bet that we can post a question about "Amber Sainty" in post #3 in an arbitrarily-chosen left-leaning Facebook group. If fewer than 51% vote Amber should be considered a woman, I'll lose the bet.
Yet no one will take me up on it.
Why?
Because everyone here knows that the majority of Democrats are now all aboard for this insanity. Not all, but the majority.
This is why I laugh at the haughty "anti-science" accusations from those on the left, as if they are the rational, superior intellectuals who utilize science to make their decisions. They aren't interested in even addressing the anti-science crap going on in their own party. Instead they obsess over Trump.
This is clearly an issue that's deeply moving to you, but I guarantee that you obsess over it far more than the average person who leans left.
Hysteria over 50+ genders, anecdotes about three year old transgenders etc is trigger bait to rile up folks like yourself. You were fed similar things about gay marriage once upon a time.
Nobody on the board pushes back on the athlete thing and how much you care about the purity of women's sports, and we all roll our eyes when you regurgitate crazy looking trans woman stories that the right propagates to stigmatize transgender people. I believe Ben Shapiro was pushing this one, no?
Perhaps you'll get better engagement on your gender fixation from your cruise ship message boards?
Cliffs: Nobody here cares about this issue, and it's sad that you've been reduced to a Bottomset-range of subjects to post about.
Nobody on this forum gives a shit about making money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeBecause nobody gives a shit, and literally no one on earth with a life outside of the internet places an iota of value on consensus that arise from 'Facebook groups'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
This is clearly an issue that's deeply moving to you, but I guarantee that you obsess over it far more than the average person who leans left.
Hysteria over 50+ genders, anecdotes about three year old transgenders etc is trigger bait to rile up folks like yourself. You were fed similar things about gay marriage once upon a time.
Nobody on the board pushes back on the athlete thing and how much you care about the purity of women's sports, and we all roll our eyes when you regurgitate crazy looking trans woman stories that the right propagates to stigmatize transgender people. I believe Ben Shapiro was pushing this one, no?
Perhaps you'll get better engagement on your gender fixation from your cruise ship message boards?
Cliffs: Nobody here cares about this issue, and it's sad that you've been reduced to a Bottomset-range of subjects to post about.
If you and others really believed that most mainstream Democrats found these extreme transgender ideas to be ridiculous, I'd have people lining up to bet big money with me.
If these really are just "crazy trans woman stories" which most common Democrats see as absurd, surely most would vote the sensible way in the social media polls I'm talking about betting on, and you'd put a lot of my Jew gold in your bank.
Nobody takes this bet because deep down they know how stupid their own party is regarding this issue, and how it's infected mainstream Democratic thinking to be the norm nowadays.
Are these issues super-important in the grand scheme of things? No. But it shows how the left now struggles with its own large anti-science contingent, and is afraid to talk about it.
Identity politics rules over all else in today's Democratic Party. Remember when the coronavirus was first really ramping up in the US, and your lefty buddies were all expending energy and airtime crying about Trump calling it "The Chinese Virus"? Even Bill Maher had to smack down his own party over that one.
It's very cute how you really believe that you're part of a movement based upon rationality and science-based logic, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNobody on this forum gives a shit about making money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
If you and others really believed that most mainstream Democrats found these extreme transgender ideas to be ridiculous, I'd have people lining up to bet big money with me.
If these really are just "crazy trans woman stories" which most common Democrats see as absurd, surely most would vote the sensible way in the social media polls I'm talking about betting on, and you'd put a lot of my Jew gold in your bank.
Nobody takes this bet because deep down they know how stupid their own party is regarding this issue, and how it's infected mainstream Democratic thinking to be the norm nowadays.
Are these issues super-important in the grand scheme of things? No. But it shows how the left now struggles with its own large anti-science contingent, and is afraid to talk about it.
Identity politics rules over all else in today's Democratic Party. Remember when the coronavirus was first really ramping up in the US, and your lefty buddies were all expending energy and airtime crying about Trump calling it "The Chinese Virus"? Even Bill Maher had to smack down his own party over that one.
It's very cute how you really believe that you're part of a movement based upon rationality and science-based logic, though.
JFC Druff.
Shut it the fuck down.
Oh yeah, & carry on regaling us with your vast knowledge of Bill Maher, & his views, a guy that you admitted in another thread that you had not seen even 1 episode of his show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNobody on this forum gives a shit about making money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
If you and others really believed that most mainstream Democrats found these extreme transgender ideas to be ridiculous, I'd have people lining up to bet big money with me.
If these really are just "crazy trans woman stories" which most common Democrats see as absurd, surely most would vote the sensible way in the social media polls I'm talking about betting on, and you'd put a lot of my Jew gold in your bank.
Nobody takes this bet because deep down they know how stupid their own party is regarding this issue, and how it's infected mainstream Democratic thinking to be the norm nowadays.
Are these issues super-important in the grand scheme of things? No. But it shows how the left now struggles with its own large anti-science contingent, and is afraid to talk about it.
Identity politics rules over all else in today's Democratic Party. Remember when the coronavirus was first really ramping up in the US, and your lefty buddies were all expending energy and airtime crying about Trump calling it "The Chinese Virus"? Even Bill Maher had to smack down his own party over that one.
It's very cute how you really believe that you're part of a movement based upon rationality and science-based logic, though.