On 12/16/2010 1:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> was that the video was patronizing,
>
> I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists
> are its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense,
> and they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you
> spot a denialist" more than anything.
>
Hmm. Didn't bother watching it, so initially posted something irrelevant 
to the content, but there is a strong thread of, "We have tried every 
other damn thing to get these people to pay attention to facts, so lets 
make them angry and ridicule them, in the grand tradition of a long 
stream of people that have done so, and gotten actual results." People 
don't like to have other people make them feel bad. If you treat those 
completely clueless about something, or ill informed, like their 
position is worthy of discussion, it almost always *strengthens* their 
position, even if the only reason you take it seriously is to eviscerate 
their arguments. But, sometimes, every once in a while, the otherwise 
impervious *do* check their facts, if told that their arguments are not 
even worth respecting. And, while there is some small number of fence 
sitters that take the whole concept of "defend the underdog" way too 
seriously, who will jump to the denialists perspective, far more of them 
are likely to go, "Those people do research, these other people just 
whine about how they don't believe the research. I am not surprised the 
side with facts is pissed off about it."

The other sort, who try to debate/talk it over, because we, in their odd 
vision of the universe, we need "allies" among the people skeptical 
about abject, well proven, facts, pretty much always end up on the 
defense, never get their point across, and when they go to a debate, 
almost *always* find that the debate ends up being 10 minutes of the 
denialists rattling off 5,000 objections, 80% of which have jack to do 
with the subject being debated, and being given the *same* 10 minutes to 
address all of them, including the irrelevant ones, or, according to the 
denialist, his/her supporters, Faux News, and anyone else with a stake 
in the false side of the debate, "They failed to address all of the 
points brought up, so they lost the debate!"

Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo 
with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice 
about it!" ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message