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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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!" ;)

Saw this earlier today.  The first half had me laughing at just how 
obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> 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.

My impression too - it's preaching to the choir. A good video for poking
fun, but virtually useless otherwise.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.

I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in germs 
but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority figure 
told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism hasn't been so 
newsworthy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.
>
> I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in
> germs but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority
> figure told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism
> hasn't been so newsworthy.

Yes, but I don't see them being convinced otherwise by this video.

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.12.2010 02:06, schrieb Darren New:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk

Refreshingly straightforward guy.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> > Neeum Zawan wrote:
> >> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.
> >
> > I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in
> > germs but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority
> > figure told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism
> > hasn't been so newsworthy.

> Yes, but I don't see them being convinced otherwise by this video. 

  It's a question of prevention. When you know that the denialism
phenomenon exists, it doesn't catch you by surprise if someone tries
to sell it to you. Sometimes if something like this catches you by
surprise and you are not experienced enough in recognizing pseudoscience,
conspiracy theories and denialism, you might get lured into believing it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/16/2010 6:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>
Recent article from, I think, the Times, or one of those, centered on 
how, unlike some religions, evangelicals tend to embrace technology. My 
comment was, "Sure, just like barbarians embrace the use of books for 
use as foot rests (or maybe toilet paper would have been a better 
anology), someone who conquers a country whose national animal was a 
herd of specific deer, or the like, by sending one to every copatriot, 
freshly mounted for display, and certain terrorists embrace cell phone 
technology." The point is never to understand the sciences, its to 
employ those which give them a means to spread the faith, even if they 
later, having won, reject the very thing they used to do so, and their 
***entire*** intent is to get rid of any and all of it they don't like, 
just as soon as they can. Much like creating a 100% museum 'like' 
edifice to promote young earth creationism, because museums give the 
*suggestion* of authority, while wanting to erase any museum with the 
wrong art, or insufficient reverence to mythology), or one builds an 
"Ark" theme park, not with the intent of replicating something like 
Epcot, but rather the Pinocchio right at Disney Land, but *claiming* 
that it is Epcot.

They don't respect any of it, they hate most of it, they would just as 
soon be rid of any of it that wasn't convenient for their own ends, etc. 
Its the village idiot using a surgical laser to snuff ants, because they 
don't believe in surgery, but its so nice for burning ants that they 
can't *quite* decide to just get rid of the device entirely. Its still 
useful see. Its only the completely useless stuff you throw out, like 
heart transplants (thanks Brewer!).

-- 
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

On 16-12-2010 10:50, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.12.2010 02:52, schrieb Neeum Zawan:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>>
>> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
>> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
>> etc.
>
> Too much on-screen text, cartoons etc. that don't directly relate to the
> spoken text, and therefore rather distract from it.

That is what my impression was too. You could use it as an example in 
the (equally useless) youtube video: 'how to loose your audience in 5 
easy steps'.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-12-2010 2:06, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>

Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
If so, what the ... does he mean?

Post a reply to this message