Not as long as enough people call out this kind of BS. But if we fail to do that, then Taleb's Minority Rule kicks in and the wishes of a minority become the status quo.
Yes. By speaking out against it, civilly and succinctly, you push back against the boundary of mainstream thought being established with that statement. Even if it ultimately moves that way you create drag. If enough folks agree with you the boundary moves your way.
I just read a joke that was about a doctor and his patient. The doctor addressed the patient as a man and the patient said, "I'm a woman." "Well," said the doctor, "MS Jones, you have prostate cancer."
There's a difference between sex and gender. While that's true about sex. It isnt true about gender.
Maybe they should have made up new terminology to not confuse the two. But I find it quite silly when conservatives simply refuse to accept gender fluidity.
I find it quite silly that the left is shoving "gender fluidity" down our throats, such as destroying our language with improper pronouns and men competing in women's sports, just to name two silliness.
Bud Light is not beer. It is fetid water in drag. This is about science. Progressives went from being “about the Science” to science deniers in short order.
Men can marry men is a subjective opinion. Men can become women has crossed over into actual science, and if we do still have a national religion, it is Science.
If what you say is true, then how come the GW fanatics say, "The science on GW is settled."?
Scientific finding are never settled. The beauty of the scientific method is science is, in search of the truth, constantly challenged. Yet the left is trying to stifle the search for the truth.
Yeah, it's terrible science. The only reliable reference is, IMO, the UAH data that uses satellites to measure the temperature of the entire troposphere. It does show that some warming happened between 1980 (which is as far back as the data goes), and about 2000, but the trend has flattened since then. If it were me, I'd recommend a strategy of prudent avoidance: take measures to reduce carbon emissions when it's practical to do so, but don't tear society down trying to eliminate them. A lot of reduction has happened since 1980 anyway, simply due to advancements in technology. Cars, for instance, are far more efficient now than they were in 1980.
The thing about GW advocates is that they're basically trying to revert to a pre-industrial society. They are opposed practical measures that might actually achieve their stated goals, without lowering standards of living. For instance, they're opposed to nuclear power, and they refuse to allow rare-earth metals mining or smelting in the U.S..
I agree. I just read an article about the inconsistency between ground data and satellite data. I also think the GW folks are pawns for folks making only off the "transition". At the risk of exposing not only my nerdiness but also my age, my very favorite Star Trek episode was the one where the crew of the Enterprise attempted to violate the Prime Directive to save the inhabitants of a planet facing an unavoidable catastrophic event. It was a very advanced society. So advanced that it had recognized the fallibility of technology and eschewed it. To the extent that the Enterprise help was refused. The Luddite in me likes that.
Ha! Science! That has been made a mockery too. Authorities have fallen. Everywhere. We have reached a point where our access to information has made it possible for us to challenge and discredit everything and everyone we once thought we could trust. Very scary moment in history. Because threatened authorities strike back. And that’s what’s happening now.
Actual science remains a useful thing. It was very easy to criticize Anthony Fauci as a corrupt murderer and authoritarian by pointing to the many patent contradictions between his policies and what the data actually said. Those critiques were of course censored and those making them punished, but they were not subjective, and thus not really amenable to changes in social mores the way say gay marriage was. The change in social mores has more to do with obedience to bad science, and those proclaiming it than the science itself.
It was a remains astonishing to me how fully the smartest people I know fell for the bullshit that Fauci and others pushed on us. I was on a college campus the other day and saw a professorial looking woman wearing a mask outside on a windy day. How is that possible? What was the POINT of an education if that astonishing level of credulity and even cowardice is possible in a supposedly Liberal society?
The rednecks figured it out instantly. It wasn't hard. All you had to do is trust common sense rather than the TV. Many of them died because you can't be healthy on a diet of biscuits, Mountain Dew and cigarettes, but it wasn't not wearing masks that killed them, and it sure as hell was not choosing not to participate in the global medical experiment.
The demeaning redneck commentary weakens your point considerably. As it does my impression of you. It is nothing more than kicking those you perceive as dogs. Perhaps the rednecks figured it out so fast because they are not only intelligent but also well-grounded.
I have not and I stand corrected. I have had that ham.thing in Louisville and Lexington though. As for this article though rednecks, in my experience either speak their minds or do not speak at all.
Will there be a shift toward, “People with penises are women”? Or does this otherwise brilliant description ever have a breaking point?
Not as long as enough people call out this kind of BS. But if we fail to do that, then Taleb's Minority Rule kicks in and the wishes of a minority become the status quo.
Yes. By speaking out against it, civilly and succinctly, you push back against the boundary of mainstream thought being established with that statement. Even if it ultimately moves that way you create drag. If enough folks agree with you the boundary moves your way.
I just read a joke that was about a doctor and his patient. The doctor addressed the patient as a man and the patient said, "I'm a woman." "Well," said the doctor, "MS Jones, you have prostate cancer."
I don't get the joke...
Only MEN get prostrate cancer..😎
Only men have prostate glands.
There's a difference between sex and gender. While that's true about sex. It isnt true about gender.
Maybe they should have made up new terminology to not confuse the two. But I find it quite silly when conservatives simply refuse to accept gender fluidity.
I find it quite silly that the left is shoving "gender fluidity" down our throats, such as destroying our language with improper pronouns and men competing in women's sports, just to name two silliness.
How about "humans control the climate"?
We can't even control rampant crime much less the climate.
It seems that the Bud Lite fiasco is not just about boycotting beer, but another step to reverse the pendulum.
Bud Light is not beer. It is fetid water in drag. This is about science. Progressives went from being “about the Science” to science deniers in short order.
Agree. As long Anheuser-Busch and woke crowd think it is 😂
Right? King and Queen Mustache are working hard on getting that lie into the Blue middle.
Men can marry men is a subjective opinion. Men can become women has crossed over into actual science, and if we do still have a national religion, it is Science.
If what you say is true, then how come the GW fanatics say, "The science on GW is settled."?
Scientific finding are never settled. The beauty of the scientific method is science is, in search of the truth, constantly challenged. Yet the left is trying to stifle the search for the truth.
Where is the religion in that?
Same thing. Bad science.
Yeah, it's terrible science. The only reliable reference is, IMO, the UAH data that uses satellites to measure the temperature of the entire troposphere. It does show that some warming happened between 1980 (which is as far back as the data goes), and about 2000, but the trend has flattened since then. If it were me, I'd recommend a strategy of prudent avoidance: take measures to reduce carbon emissions when it's practical to do so, but don't tear society down trying to eliminate them. A lot of reduction has happened since 1980 anyway, simply due to advancements in technology. Cars, for instance, are far more efficient now than they were in 1980.
The thing about GW advocates is that they're basically trying to revert to a pre-industrial society. They are opposed practical measures that might actually achieve their stated goals, without lowering standards of living. For instance, they're opposed to nuclear power, and they refuse to allow rare-earth metals mining or smelting in the U.S..
I agree. I just read an article about the inconsistency between ground data and satellite data. I also think the GW folks are pawns for folks making only off the "transition". At the risk of exposing not only my nerdiness but also my age, my very favorite Star Trek episode was the one where the crew of the Enterprise attempted to violate the Prime Directive to save the inhabitants of a planet facing an unavoidable catastrophic event. It was a very advanced society. So advanced that it had recognized the fallibility of technology and eschewed it. To the extent that the Enterprise help was refused. The Luddite in me likes that.
I just re-read "State of Fear," by Michael Crichton and was amazed by how persuasive this book of fiction is.
I've read State of Fear years ago. Crichton was a genius.
I have not read that. I like Crichton though so will pick it up.
Ha! Science! That has been made a mockery too. Authorities have fallen. Everywhere. We have reached a point where our access to information has made it possible for us to challenge and discredit everything and everyone we once thought we could trust. Very scary moment in history. Because threatened authorities strike back. And that’s what’s happening now.
The trouble is that people think that science is 'settled'. It is not.
Actual science remains a useful thing. It was very easy to criticize Anthony Fauci as a corrupt murderer and authoritarian by pointing to the many patent contradictions between his policies and what the data actually said. Those critiques were of course censored and those making them punished, but they were not subjective, and thus not really amenable to changes in social mores the way say gay marriage was. The change in social mores has more to do with obedience to bad science, and those proclaiming it than the science itself.
It was a remains astonishing to me how fully the smartest people I know fell for the bullshit that Fauci and others pushed on us. I was on a college campus the other day and saw a professorial looking woman wearing a mask outside on a windy day. How is that possible? What was the POINT of an education if that astonishing level of credulity and even cowardice is possible in a supposedly Liberal society?
The rednecks figured it out instantly. It wasn't hard. All you had to do is trust common sense rather than the TV. Many of them died because you can't be healthy on a diet of biscuits, Mountain Dew and cigarettes, but it wasn't not wearing masks that killed them, and it sure as hell was not choosing not to participate in the global medical experiment.
The demeaning redneck commentary weakens your point considerably. As it does my impression of you. It is nothing more than kicking those you perceive as dogs. Perhaps the rednecks figured it out so fast because they are not only intelligent but also well-grounded.
Try singer John Rich’s new whisky:”Redneck Riviera”--excellent!!
I don't drink brown liquor but have spent a lot of happy times in my youth on the Redneck Riviera.
Most “rednecks” enjoy the term. Who are you really defending?
I thought it was a dig.
I spend much of my time with rednecks. In general they are smarter than most college grads.
But I know whereof I speak. If you havent had a biscuit and gravy in Hazard Kentucky please dont judge me.
I have not and I stand corrected. I have had that ham.thing in Louisville and Lexington though. As for this article though rednecks, in my experience either speak their minds or do not speak at all.
I think that's what he meant -- it was an ironic reference.