Meh. I mentally lump all you humans into Farmville & Candy Crush players anyway.
{goes back to playing E.T. on Atari 2600}
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. I mentally lump all you humans
Them's eatin words.
Meh. I mentally lump all you humans into Farmville & Candy Crush players anyway.
{goes back to playing E.T. on Atari 2600}
Have you tried Pokemon Go yet brother. Very fun for me, although I feel like weird when I play it...... besides those subliminal messages to bomb Pearl Harbor.
I suspect the whole Satanic Panic bit did a lot towards pushing pencil & paper gamers towards the Left.
In short, the Religious Right spent years doing its damnedest to alienate P&P gamers, and so I suspect that even such gamers with conservative leaning are reluctant to vote for the party that thinks they deserve to burn in Hell.
So perhaps more a function of the Republicans keeping bad company than of gamers being naturally liberal.
(As has been noted before, The Republicans have been trying to be the White Angry Male Christian party at the cost of alienating everyone else. And in some parts of the country that still works fine.)
If you can imagine a world different than it is or ever has been then that's the first step to being progressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Michael Kimmel's Angry White Men sums up Trump's voter base pretty well:
"But first we have to understand that anger, get inside it. For one thing, it’s an anger that knows no class nor originates in a specific class. Whether we’re talking about the white working class—shorn of union protection, stripped of manufacturing jobs that once provided a modicum of dignity with a paycheck, not to mention the hale-and-hearty camaraderie of the shop floor, they’ve watched as “their” jobs disappeared with the closing of the factory gates. Or the lower middle class, that wide swath of small farmers, independent shopkeepers, independent craft workers—plumbers, electricians, contractors—and small businessmen whose livelihoods have been steadily eroded, as the farm crisis of the 1990s consolidated independent farmers into wage workers for agribusiness, as Walmart put local grocery and other retail stores out of business. Even upper-middle-class men, even those with jobs and pensions and health plans, feel ripped off—by affirmative action programs, immigration, welfare, taxation, and the general sense that they’re being had.What unites all these groups is not just the fact that they are men. What unites them is their belief in a certain ideal of masculinity. It is not just their livelihoods that are threatened, but their sense of themselves as men. Faludi observed in Stiffed that American men have lost “a useful role in public life, a way of earning a decent and reliable living, appreciation in the home, respectful treatment in the culture.”3 They’re feeling emasculated—humiliated. The promise of economic freedom, of boundless opportunity, of unlimited upward mobility, was what they believed was the terra firma of American masculinity, the ground on which American men have stood for generations. Today, it feels like a carpet being snatched from under their feet." (Kimmel, 2013)
I think this article sums up some very interesting ideas about how Left/Right clash with our current Democrat/Republican system and media. On the one hand, the article clearly identifies a serious erosion of things that supported the middleclass, and a shift of wealth to consolidated and corporate powers. It identifies the pattern that the lower and middle class have been used to fuel huge gains among the wealthy, while not getting ahead or even falling behind. Basically it identifies the class struggle that many Leftist ideas are formed around.
But then it veers of into Democratic Party and Neoliberial territory. Workers didn't lose their jobs when the factory moved overseas, they lost "their" jobs (the implication being that they were never entitled to jobs in the first place). It also shifts the reason all these things are bad from actual reality, to perception and feelings. The problem is not that people are working two crap jobs and struggling to even pay rent, it is they don't feel macho. In other words, these are just problems of poor perception among the unwashed masses, not real issues. I have heard this idea from many on the Democratic side, such as Obama saying that the problem with police and minorities is one of perception.
The Corporate Left's failure to identify, and more importantly, address these issues are holding back the actual Left from making real improvements, and also a large reason so many voters are driven away. An almost identical problem exists on the Right with the Corporate Right and NeoCons. For years, our system (media and politics) has been ignoring actual political ideology and improvements for the citizens in favor of economic politics that overwhelmingly favor a handful of the wealthiest interests. People see this and understand it more then the elite give them credit for.
Trumpism, is a predictable reaction to the failure of those-in-power to acknowledge and address some real serious problems. It isn't just a few poor powerless people failing to "perceive" things adequately.
The problem is not that people are working two crap jobs and struggling to even pay rent, it is they don't feel macho. In other words, these are just problems of poor perception among the unwashed masses, not real issues. I have heard this idea from many on the Democratic side, such as Obama saying that the problem with police and minorities is one of perception.
That they don't feel macho is why they would fall for a republican solution , not necessarily why there;s a problem.
We've spent millenia bulding up people (especially men's) self worth around how much they make, either moneywise or as some kind of contest. part of that has been celebrating people who do well monetarily (the rich and famous), athletes, or who get a lot done (Paul bunyan).
It is rough, as a man, hearing that you're useless, we have no use for you, go home. There's not only an enormous pile of shame that comes with that, but the very crushing reality that society doesn't give a rat's ass about a useless male and will let you die in the gutter. You can't have a wife, you can't h ave kids, you can't have a car, you can't have a house you can't have a life. Just go away and die somewhere, I can't even bother to give you as half as much as we'd spend to keep someone in prison.
If you've hit that point, or even remotely look like you're going to hit that point, you're looking for someone to blame. We've been told all our lives that this is america and hard work WORKS! Moral men work hard and do well and those that do well are moral because otherwise the universe would be unfair, and god wouldn't let that happen would he? SOMEONE must be messing with the system. Something must be horribly wrong.
That's such a good book btw. That and Guyland explain gamergate and "anti-pc" culture so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That they don't feel macho is why they would fall for a republican solution, not necessarily why there's a problem.
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.
I would use the analogy of a boat. Let's imagine most citizens are together on a boat that has been neglected and leaking for decades now. On one side of this neglected vessel you have the opulent new HMS Neo Liberal (Democratic Party, NPR, MSNBC, Wall Street) and on the other side you have the also opulent, now orange-colored, HMS Neo Conservative (Republican Party, NewsCorp, Wall Street). [EDIT: Trump is an odd captain for this ship, as his campaign rhetoric is often against Neo ideals. I suspect that if the money behind him is Neo, he will push those ideas.] The NeoLibs are basically saying that things are improving (just look at those Wall Street numbers!), and if we just keep things going like they have been, and were in the 90's, everything is going to be great, unlike the last time we did that stuff and it screwed things up badly (1994 crime bill, welfare reform, economic and foreign policy).
When the water is rising, and people are hurting, they don't want to hear that there is no problem, and they don't want more of what failed in the past. In that situation, someone coming along and saying, 'we have a problem! We need to drill, baby drill, some holes in the hull to let this water out!' is at least relatable. (Even if b&!@*~+ crazy). Someone coming along and saying, 'look at those red-necks, they are just upset because of the perception that they are up to their necks in water, makes them feel like they are not living up to masculine ideals'. Well, that isn't just painfully out of touch, it is also insulting enough to drive people to the other side.
*watches Pillbug play Atari* *hands him a pamphlet* Read the Last Word of Orcus! It will change your life!
So am I the problem wolf?
We've spent millenia bulding up people (especially men's) self worth around how much they make, either moneywise or as some kind of contest. part of that has been celebrating people who do well monetarily (the rich and famous), athletes, or who get a lot done (Paul bunyan).
It is rough, as a man, hearing that you're useless, we have no use for you, go home. ...more
I agree 100%, but I don't think this is a male specific issue. Do women enjoy, "the very crushing reality that society doesn't give a rat's ass about a useless male female and will let you die in the gutter."? Of course not! Women and minorities have been getting more crap then white men since forever, but no one enjoys poverty, neglect, unemployment, etc. These are not gender, race, orientation, etc. issues, these are basic issues of humanity.
Likewise, the solutions, and candidates that might solve these problems are not just things that would appeal to just one gender, one race, one faith, etc.
"Do you know what it's like falling in the mud and getting kicked, in the head? With an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does, that never happens." Rex Kramer, Airplane.
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.
I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.
So am I the problem wolf?
*hands off a copy of Book of the Damned* If so, I'm sure you'll find the answers here!
I agree 100%, but I don't think this is a male specific issue. y.
It's a numbers game, not an absolute.
The safety net is just as real as the glass ceiling. There are women that support trump. There are males voting for clinton.
"Do you know what it's like falling in the mud and getting kicked, in the head? With an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does, that never happens." Rex Kramer, Airplane.
well there wasn't any mud...
(and THATS why i dont walk away from fights anymore)
Is there a difference between the corporate right and the corporate left?But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.
You can look at net neutrality as an example - with the Democrats supporting the content providers and the Republicans supporting the service providers.
Or the solar energy industry v. the coal industry. (Or global warming.)
All sorts of economic related issues with semi-arbitrary splits on which party is affiliated with which side, though Republicans tend to be consistently on whichever side would be worse for the environment and/or the public =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So am I the problem wolf?
you're not helping.
The whole "they're exactly the same, why bother" attitude surpresses voter turnout which helps the right, since they don't need to rely on reality to motivate their voters.
We're screwed unless things change, and change in ways that the "left" has been looking pretty strongly at
-we need citizens united overturned so we can keep the bribery down to something we can actually fight against. if it stays as it is the law is going to get entrenched and be unfixable.
-we need independent district drawing so that voters can select their representatives not the other way around. Republicans lost the last congressional election by over a million votes but still made huge gains. Democrats not being pure as the driven snow on gerrymandering doesn't meant that they're as guilty as the republicans.
-we need corporations to pay taxes again
-we need to start policy decision based on differences of opinion, not basic facts.
-we need to start policy decision based on differences of opinion, not basic facts.
Wait, what? :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what? :)
-we need to start policy decision based on differences of opinion, not basic facts.
We should save green acres as a wildlife reserve because I like the fluffy bunnies that live there.
We should use green acres as a shopping mall because that is it's optimal value
That SHOULD be a debate. There's something to discuss there.
We need to do something about global warming
Global warming is a myth!
This should NOT be a debate at this point.
The following has NO basis on scientific evidence, and is merely my opinions on what I've observed here on this forum.
In regards to gamers being more left than right, I'd say that APPEARS (and appearances can be deceiving) to be true of THIS FORUM...but that doesn't necessarily apply to all forums or all gamers.
I think there may be more of those who favor the left here for several reasons, none of which really centers on them being table top gamers or having a higher IQ (sorry guys, you may all be smarter, but I don't think that's the reason for the political leanings).
1) They tend to be younger. It doesn't matter if you look at Gamers, or other groups in the US. In general, the individuals that are composed of a higher group of younger people tend to be more liberal. On the other side, those that tend to have more senior citizens tend to be more conservative. We may have some senior citizens here, but overall I think the audience tends towards the younger side (though perhaps not as young as the WH40K groupies that come and go or the NEW 5e players that just started).
2) Paizo in it's APs and other merchandise promote LGBT and other items that appeal far more to those on the Left than those on the right. It should not be a surprise then, if they have a higher group that are on the Left, then on the right. This is not just a generational thing, this applies to anyone who is drawn to Paizo's equality efforts and portrayals of such things. These are items that those on the FAR right may not appreciate as much and probably would tend to look towards other pastures. In otherwords, it's the political stance of Paizo that draws those of a like political stance to it's forums.
I wouldn't say it's ALL wine and roses (I've been outspoken and even criticized for pointing out things which are not as far left or as equality leaning as I would like on Paizo Products...but they are still far more left in their approach then say something like WH Fantasy or Warhammer 40K has been in the past or other games and RPGs).
3) In conjunction with the younger audience, those who are computer literate and hence are more likely to be on these forums will be those who are younger than the older audiences (meaning no offense to the old guys and gals, I'm one of you older individuals as well...so, it's also a commentary in and of itself on me as well). They know their way around the computer and go places on their computers, tablets, and phones which the older audiences will not. This goes hand in hand with point 1.
4) No offense to Paizo, but at times they seem to mill out the more conservative users and commentators on their forums. It's their property, and they can do as they wish. That also contributes to those who participate here. It also makes for a more peaceful (if you can believe it's peaceful) discussion here in regards to more left leaning subjects.
Hence, I'd say it's not so much gamers as a whole are liberal (I have no backing or information on that), but in regards to this forum, a few factors that deal with those who come to the forum and Paizo's products themselves. That said, there are those who are conservative on Paizo's forums, and I'm certain there is a sizeable contingent of Tabletop RPG players that are also conservative.
The appearance, however, is that this particular forum is rather liberal leaning, but I don't attribute that to us (me included) being those with the highest IQ or the most persecuted, but rather like interests drawing to like interested.
Lots of stuff on political leanings of posters
I don't normally agree with GreyWolfLord on a lot of things, but I think he is exactly correct here. Paizo is a pretty progressive company, and I think their support LGBTQ and moderation policies have gradually turned off Alt-right and more conservative leaning posters either completely away from the site, or at least from sections of the site dealing even tangentially with those topics. I've been posting long enough to see some pretty disgusting stuff be posted by folks no longer around, which quickly got deleted and in some cases led to bans. And just being the sort of person who spends a lot of time on a forum is going to automatically skew where you fall on the political spectrum.
I also think there is just a natural human tendency to assume whatever special interest you have, whether it's science, gaming, birding, or any other hobby, is full of like-minded "enlightened" folks of your political persuasion. And a lot of that is more down to hanging out in areas where those contrary folks don't show up, or conversations just not steering in those directions and thus a certain amount of ignorance of what other people really feel.
Wait, what? :)
-we need to start policy decision based on differences of opinion, not basic facts.We should save green acres as a wildlife reserve because I like the fluffy bunnies that live there.
We should use green acres as a shopping mall because that is it's optimal value
That SHOULD be a debate. There's something to discuss there.
We need to do something about global warming
Global warming is a myth!
This should NOT be a debate at this point.
I was referring to policy decisions being made on "differences of opinion, not basic facts." ;)
Why would one make policy decisions the first instead of the last?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because currently facts are dismissed as opinion. Not to to put words in in BNW's mouth, but two parties can only disagree on opinion provided they accept the facts of the situation as true. Otherwise they're disagreeing on the basic facts of the situation.
The following has NO basis on scientific evidence, and is merely my opinions on what I've observed here on this forum.
In regards to gamers being more left than right, I'd say that APPEARS (and appearances can be deceiving) to be true of THIS FORUM...but that doesn't necessarily apply to all forums or all gamers.
I think there may be more of those who favor the left here for several reasons, none of which really centers on them being table top gamers or having a higher IQ (sorry guys, you may all be smarter, but I don't think that's the reason for the political leanings).
1) They tend to be younger. It doesn't matter if you look at Gamers, or other groups in the US. In general, the individuals that are composed of a higher group of younger people tend to be more liberal. On the other side, those that tend to have more senior citizens tend to be more conservative. We may have some senior citizens here, but overall I think the audience tends towards the younger side (though perhaps not as young as the WH40K groupies that come and go or the NEW 5e players that just started).
2) Paizo in it's APs and other merchandise promote LGBT and other items that appeal far more to those on the Left than those on the right. It should not be a surprise then, if they have a higher group that are on the Left, then on the right. This is not just a generational thing, this applies to anyone who is drawn to Paizo's equality efforts and portrayals of such things. These are items that those on the FAR right may not appreciate as much and probably would tend to look towards other pastures. In otherwords, it's the political stance of Paizo that draws those of a like political stance to it's forums.
I wouldn't say it's ALL wine and roses (I've been outspoken and even criticized for pointing out things which are not as far left or as equality leaning as I would like on Paizo Products...but they are still far more left in their approach then say something like WH Fantasy or Warhammer 40K has been in the past or...
Kinda why I don't really try or talk much of politics on these forums.
|
The main complaints about fracking is the destruction and contamination of ground water, and safe clean drinking water is pretty important. A secondary fear is earthquakes.
This is one of those issues where I part ways with most liberals... I say the earthquakes are the best thing about fracking.
Who knew that we could develop a potential earthquake management technology just by pumping sludge down into the fault lines? We should carefully study the earthquake patterns from fracking to see if we can use similar (preferably less toxic) processes to slowly ease large fault lines along so that they never build up enough force to cause truly massive quakes. Lots of small quakes will do much less damage than even one 'big one'.
As to Dem vs Rep on energy policy. Obama, and now Clinton, have gone with 'all of the above'. Republicans are pure 'drill baby drill'. There is a big difference there... especially as 'all of the above' inevitably turns into, 'whatever costs least'... which is why coal has been dying and oil will soon follow. The GOP wanted to prop up coal and oil with even greater subsidies than they received in the past. Obama has moved us towards a more level economic playing field. If Hillary continues that policy she may be SAYING 'all of the above', but in practice it will be 'grow wind and solar while everything else shrinks or holds steady'.
Wait, what? :)
-we need to start policy decision based on differences of opinion, not basic facts.We should save green acres as a wildlife reserve because I like the fluffy bunnies that live there.
We should use green acres as a shopping mall because that is it's optimal value
That SHOULD be a debate. There's something to discuss there.
We need to do something about global warming
Global warming is a myth!
This should NOT be a debate at this point.
I was referring to policy decisions being made on "differences of opinion, not basic facts." ;)
Why would one make policy decisions the first instead of the last?
As others have said, his statement is about where the debate currently is.
Imagine a married couple discussing whether they should get new tires for the car.
a) if the conversation starts off accepting the premise that cars use tires and they should be replaced occasionally, now you're just debating whether the current tires fit the criteria of replacement.
b) if you have to debate the other person whether cars even exist and whether or not these "fictional cars" even use tires... well, the debate is much harder to have that you should replace the tires, because you can't even agree that the car exists and/or uses tires.
Kinda why I don't really try or talk much of politics on these forums.
I keep suggesting folk pop over to blogspot or wordpress and set up a free blog for their political opinions. You don't have to tell anyone, or only tell others you trust; either way, it might feel good just to write those thoughts out and vent a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.
Please check out my post above the one you responded to. My point was that the Democratic Party, and organizations like MSNBC and NPR, may be Leftists on some issues (usually social) but when it comes to issues of economy and trade, they are textbook Neoliberial.
Obama and the Clinton's economic policy is basically Reaganomics:"Neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States in 1981 with policies put into place by the Reagan Administration which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion. ...
During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act."
Also this, because - centaurs!:
"Several scholars have linked the rise of neoliberalism to unprecedented levels of mass incarceration of the poor in the United States. Sociologist Loïc Wacquant argues that neoliberal policy for dealing with social instability among economically marginalized populations following the implementation of other neoliberal policies which have allowed for the retrenchment of the social welfare state and the rise of punitive workfare, increased gentrification of urban areas, privatization of public functions, the shrinking of collective protections for the working class via economic deregulation, and the rise of underpaid, precarious wage labor is the criminalization of poverty and mass incarceration. By contrast, it is extremely lenient in dealing with those in the upper echelons of society, in particular when it comes to economic crimes of the privileged classes and corporations such as fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, credit and insurance fraud, money laundering, and violation of commerce and labor codes. According to Wacquant, neoliberalism doesn't shrink government but instead sets up a centaur state, with little governmental oversight for those at the top and strict control of those at the bottom.
ALL HAIL THE CENTAUR STATE!
Well both seem to be married to the oil industry, fracking for example, and while the democratic platform gives lip service to being against it, they didn't actually suggest banning it. Factor in that Ken Salazar has been named to lead Hilary's transition team, a man that's not only pro fracking but also green lit a number of off shore drilling operations when he was Secretary of the Interior, and you have to wonder exactly what the difference between a typical republican government and a Hilary government regarding the oil industry.Is there a difference between the corporate right and the corporate left?But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.You can look at net neutrality as an example - with the Democrats supporting the content providers and the Republicans supporting the service providers.
Or the solar energy industry v. the coal industry. (Or global warming.)
All sorts of economic related issues with semi-arbitrary splits on which party is affiliated with which side, though Republicans tend to be consistently on whichever side would be worse for the environment and/or the public =P
There is a reason I say the democrats are a center-right party
I suspect the whole Satanic Panic bit did a lot towards pushing pencil & paper gamers towards the Left.
Having lived through those years, and having met hundreds of gamers, and sci-fi fans, I would pretty much say that as a population, they both have always pretty much sat at the same point of the center-right wing spectrum. You probably find a somewhat higher percentage of Libertarians, but those are outnumbered by a much higher degree of political apathy.
About the only difference these groups have with most of the social moderate/fiscally conservative Republican Lite, is that they'd kick more money to space, although some of them would salivate at the thought of disbanding NASA entirely, in the belief that capitalism by itself, will take us to the stars.
Please check out my post above the one you responded to. My point was that the Democratic Party, and organizations like MSNBC and NPR, may be Leftists on some issues (usually social) but when it comes to issues of economy and trade, they are textbook Neoliberial.
As it's been seen, both the Democratic Party and especially MSNBC have pretty much purged themselves of leftist. Rachael Maddow by herself does not make an entire network leftist, and pretty much all of the others were served their walking papers.
It's not entirely clear how much to the left Obama was or even pretended to be.
He sure talked a big game when it came to NAFTA.
What kind of major renegotiation has he accomplished in the eight or nine years since he made those statements?
Kinda why I don't really try or talk much of politics on these forums.I keep suggesting folk pop over to blogspot or wordpress and set up a free blog for their political opinions. You don't have to tell anyone, or only tell others you trust; either way, it might feel good just to write those thoughts out and vent a little.
Nah, that is something my brother Comrade Anklebiter would do.
All I know is no one seems interested in being converted to the Word of Orcus. :p
It doesn't help when there are some reasons to be concerned about the facts and data in question. For example, the way the famous hockey stick graph was thoroughly debunked, but many groups continued to use it anyway in order to push their agenda. It's another "boy who cried wolf" situation - if there's reasonable evidence to show that you were lying before, then people are going to be a lot more skeptical in the future, making it much harder to convince them if you start telling the truth.
(In fairness, most groups who used that graph probably weren't aware of the problems with it before the study discussed in my link was done, and they can be forgiven for that. Afterwards, though...)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's another "boy who cried wolf" situation - if there's reasonable evidence to show that you were lying before, then people are going to be a lot more skeptical in the future, making it much harder to convince them if you start telling the truth.
And yet the same people seem to believe individuals who provably lie to them every time they move their mouths, and call them 'straight shooters' who 'tell it like it is.'
It's like the 'boy who cried wolf' didn't lie *enough* for them to find him delightfully outrageous and 'politically outsidery.'
Change your mind once on a given position, over twenty five years of personal growth and learnin' new stuff, and you're a flip-flopping indecisive untrustworthy stack of waffles. Change your position three times in the same sentence on the same position, and you are the one true savior of truthiness.
How many lies do I need to tell to be considered honest, and why does it seem that bald-faced gaslighting (There is no climate change! 11 year cycles! Same with the economy! It's 11 year cycles all the way down!) is held in more respect than a deeply considered (or finely parsed) position with some reasonable exceptions (someone who is, for instance, against abortion, except when the life of the mother is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, which is a bridge too far for some, who won't even consider those exceptions)?
I feel like some of the political opinions and commentary I see online (the enthusiastic racism, for instance) is so unbelievable and contrarian that I couldn't put it in a fictional story, because it would come across as over-the-top and absurd and insulting to an entire political spectrum, and yet, there it is, bravely waving it's freak flag high, when it should be, IMO, crawling back under it's rock and feeling ashamed.
We're living in a Hunter S. Thompson novel. Maybe we always were, and he was just rubbing our faces in what we were pretending wasn't already there.
Implying that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and leftist political views was pretty much me being a smartass. The left is -- sadly -- riddled with anti-vaxers, the well-meaning but totally naive, and the crystal/healing energy/astrology wackos. Among others.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced encouraging the recalcitrant alt-right types to self-select (back) to Stormfront is a bad thing. :P
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't help when there are some reasons to be concerned about the facts and data in question. For example, the way the famous hockey stick graph was thoroughly debunked, but many groups continued to use it anyway in order to push their agenda.
No.
You've been sold a lie.
The hockey stick has not been debunked. Indeed, dozens of subsequent studies have confirmed that it was correct. It is now one of the most thoroughly over validated results in the history of science... just because people keep insisting that it MUST be fake, so scientists keep finding new ways to test it... that all come back with the same results.
The only significant flaw in the original 'hockey stick' study was the use of a statistical methodology called 'principal component analysis' (PCA). However, that flaw was actually one of the FINDINGS stated in the study. They used PCA because it is a good way of pulling out patterns in noisy data (i.e. separating it in to principal components) and they were expecting to find large 'natural variation patterns' in temperature. As it turned out... there AREN'T any large natural temperature patterns on the time scale of centuries... which they didn't know until they used PCA and didn't find any component patterns to separate out. Which they then reported. That's how science is SUPPOSED to work. 'We tried this, but it did not work.'
(In fairness, most groups who used that graph probably weren't aware of the problems with it before the study discussed in my link was done, and they can be forgiven for that. Afterwards, though...)
The 'study' in your link (from 2004) wasn't a study. It was a blowhard spouting off about science outside his field which he hadn't even looked at. LATER Muller did eventually gather some actual climate scientists and statisticians and perform a temperature study... and discovered that he had been completely wrong. His results validated those he had been accusing of being fraudulent;
Muller continues to spout off complete nonsense (e.g. 'not one polar bear has died due to global warming') about things he hasn't actually done the science on, but everything he has actually looked in to has matched the rest of the scientific community.