It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Misinformation Machine: The piper of the right-wing deniers

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for the reply. I think there's a basic understanding that can occur when people argue their positions and beliefs as opposed to affixing labels.

Look, from what I've read, you're an intelligent person. You know as well as I do that beginning your rhetoric (and, incidentally, ending it as well) with a label is a classic example of a straw man fallacy. Now, we see that referenced here quite a bit, and perhaps people don't completely understand what it means. You do. I know it.

So I have to reiterate..... what is your goal? Using labels and broad brush strokes is akin to a polarizing statement, which I think is pretty much the antithesis of a balanced and informational discussion.

You want people to agree with you as to whom is the enemy? I can't say I disagree much, for what that's worth, however if your goal was to accomplish some insight and/or beneficial discussion, you missed the mark from the beginning. I might infer that you are a bovine-loving marsupial and craft a belief system that cubbyholed you into it. That would be a farce, and equally applicable as labelling a whole segment of people as YOU see them.

It's a lie for any of us to infer that our opinions represent an absolute truth. It's perfectly on topic and helpful, actually.

I call them deniers because they are. They are not sceptics. They are not contrarians. They are dishonest deniers. I've followed this topic sufficiently to see these people be blatently and clearly called on their lies, and to then see them spreading the same information without even a blush.
. Okay, so what I hear is that you've formed an opinion based upon a repeated conversation here on ATS.

So tell me, what color am I pAIanted in your universe?


I don't call them conservatives, because they are generally not.
Good. You are right, of course. Conservatives generally want LESS government.


For example, I think the data that shows more educated republicans are more likely to not accept the science than those with lower levels of education is very, very interesting.
Really? There is data? I would guess t he same. This thread really isn't about scientific acceptance or denial, though.


It's mainly just been BAC - who was peeved when we discussed evolution, so thought he'd troll me here - and Animal, who has followed my posts. Most of my topics don't get big replies - I'm a bit too mundane to post exaggerated and fantastical topics. And now a group who want to derail in their current efforts to run me off the forum like some clown posse .ed by Sheriff Bozo.
I understand. It can be frustrating as hell to be assailed by people who have a personal agenda RATHER THAN one that addresses the issues.

"Poking" does good sometimes, I think, as long as it is goal-oriented and not personal; the latter seems counterproductive [you bovine-loving marsupial, you].


Cheers

[edit for selplnig]

[edit on 3-5-2009 by argentus]




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
with a label is a classic example of a straw man fallacy. Now, we see that referenced here quite a bit, and perhaps people don't completely understand what it means. You do. I know it.


So, a strawman would be creating a false argument to knock down, creating the impression that some other argument was refuted.

Inhofe and Morano are both right-wingers, funded by a wealth of industry interests - almost $1 million from energy interests for Inhofe. Morano is now associated with a think-tank funded by the right-wing Scaife foundation (who actually label themselves conservative). Many of the talking .s of the misinformation machine are associated with the likes of the Marshall, Cato, Heartland and other industry-funded think-tanks.

Those are right-wing conservative/libertarian think-tanks. I don't see the strawman. I can call them republicans/conservatives/libertarians if you want - but I think that's not really appropriate in all cases, I know quite a few republicans/cons who are not deniers. Similarly, just right-wing isn't as well - so right-wing deniers. Deniers who are right-wing, covers republicans, conservatives, and libertarians in the denial movement. They are a range of institutes that cover all the more specific labels.


So I have to reiterate..... what is your goal? Using labels and broad brush strokes is akin to a polarizing statement, which I think is pretty much the antithesis of a balanced and informational discussion.


It's hard to not polarise when that is a feature of this group.


You want people to agree with you as to whom is the enemy? I can't say I disagree much, for what that's worth, however if your goal was to accomplish some insight and/or beneficial discussion, you missed the mark from the beginning. I might infer that you are a bovine-loving marsupial and craft a belief system that cubbyholed you into it. That would be a farce, and equally applicable as labelling a whole segment of people as YOU see them.


But right-wing deniers is a fair label. I've tried to not make it too specific to one political party. It might seem too broad a brush, but if you want to box yourself in the right-wing deniers category, isn't my fault - much like all the huffing and puffing over the right-wing extremists document - it was about right-wing extremists, not people who dislike abortion in general or have guns or were soldiers or dislike the government.

So right-wing denialism is a subordinate category within right-wing.


It's a lie for any of us to infer that our opinions represent an absolute truth.


Would never do so.


Okay, so what I hear is that you've formed an opinion based upon a repeated conversation here on ATS.

So tell me, what color am I pAIanted in your universe?


Not really. Again, I have stated that this is about people like Inhofe and Morano, and the mechanisms and effects - the denial machine. It goes well beyond experiences here.

I'm not sure I know enough to even go there. If I read enough of your posts I could have a bash - but insufficient data, lol. I don't mind making predictions from behaviour and action/words. Indeed, I tend to do so. I learn from making mistakes.


Good. You are right, of course. Conservatives generally want LESS government.


Except when in power they don't, lol.

You see, in the UK, the conservatives are actually fairly good (or at least appear to be) on the environment. So I didn't want to use that label so much. They are also more centre-right (closer to Obama in style, than republicans).


Really? There is data? I would guess t he same. This thread really isn't about scientific acceptance or denial, though.


Yes. There is data, I presented it earlier. And yes, it is about denial of the area of climate science for ideological reasons.


I understand. It can be frustrating as hell to be assailed by people who have a personal agenda RATHER THAN one that addresses the issues.


Yes, so if you want to address the issues of the right-wing denial machine, this is the place to do so.


"Poking" does good sometimes, I think, as long as it is goal-oriented and not personal; the latter seems counterproductive [you bovine-loving marsupial, you].


Cheers


Yup, I stated my goal clear enough.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Again, thanks for taking the time. I understand more your perspective. Our very definitions differ, in that yours is apparenly from a UK perspective, and although I live in a British dependency territory, mine comes from a US perspective.

I can't nor would I argue for the position of a "right-wing denier". It's not my position, but moreover, I think it's a function that you created -- your label....... and that's fine. I just think you'd get a more balanced flow of conversation if you refrained from all the hyperbole..... your choice, of course.

By the way, I've been informed that you are not actually a marsupial at all, bovine-loving or otherwise. Therefore I withdraw MY strawman, although it might've been fun to debate, given that strawman's cousin is sometimes causing a situation in which one must try to disprove a negative [characterization].

You and I aren't that far apart -- if at all -- politically. Your labels make you sound [to me] like you just wanted to rant and perhaps set a bait trap. Again, I think that's the opposite of discussion.

I learned something. Always a plus.

Cheers



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
By the way, I've been informed that you are not actually a marsupial at all, bovine-loving or otherwise. Therefore I withdraw MY strawman, although it might've been fun to debate, given that strawman's cousin is sometimes causing a situation in which one must try to disprove a negative [characterization].


Probably more an honest mistake than strawman, lol.

Proving negatives can be all but impossible. However, the absence of positive evidence would be sufficient for a tentative rejection of a particular hypothesis.

Hence why I don't accept dragons in garages or orbiting teapots.


You and I aren't that far apart -- if at all -- politically. Your labels make you sound [to me] like you just wanted to rant and perhaps set a bait trap. Again, I think that's the opposite of discussion.

I learned something. Always a plus.

Cheers


That's cool. I'm not baiting anyone. To be honest, I don't even expect (or want that much) individuals who fit the category I outlined to engage with this topic.

They can by all means. But, as you see, they really can't focus that much - it quickly becomes about SUVs on mars.

You were helpful, though. I think it's an important topic, and a bit different than the norm - an actual conspiracy. Shock. Horror.

Cheers.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Hey what amazes me is how the global warming alarmist protest about destroying the planet but yet they never change their lives. They might go out and buy a prius but come on that is so hypocritical. These people think these cars are going to save the world but yet they still go to the grocery store and buy all these pre-packaged foods in plastic. The only realistic way to protest this is by moving out into the forest and living in a mud house and taking only what You need to survive......... These same people also fail to realize the sun goes through stages and its proven by history and their is nothing us as man can do to change that. If anything is the problem with global warming its the cutting down of the rain forest but then again I do not see anyone in the developing countries refusing to buy Brazils wood or its crops. I also do not see demoncraps pushing public so called green works to plant trees all over this country.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Perhaps all these former IPCC and Greenpeace members are just nuts. You identified a couple and perhaps their backgrounds are questionable.

But as a layman, and just a man, I have to be wary of anything global warming proponents have to say after reading this quote from the Club Of Rome, which is the first mention of global warming, as far as I can tell:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome

So I suppose us 'deniers' or skeptics are enemy combatants?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
But as a layman, and just a man, I have to be wary of anything global warming proponents have to say after reading this quote from the Club Of Rome, which is the first mention of global warming, as far as I can tell:


The science goes back over 100 years. But I guess that just shows that scientific greats like Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius were part of the illuminati or something.

I think I've realised how much all that conspiracy blah is just diversionary. Lets worry about ghosts and spooks hiding in the shadows, rather than the conspiracies in clear daylight.


So I suppose us 'deniers' or skeptics are enemy combatants?


Nope, most are just pawns consuming the tripe off denial conveyer belt. I'm really interested in the machine itself. Hence, money, sources, tactics, motivations, and effects.

And deniers are not sceptics. I consider myself a sceptic.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join