Because Random People Must Be Punished
Update:
In the comments, Rafi notes that “The difference between leftwing ‘activism’ and the zombie apocalypse gets smaller by the day.” While Randian adds, “If your cause requires bullying to get the message across perhaps it, and your defence of it, isn’t as righteous as you think it is.” Well, indeed. But I suppose it depends on whether you’re amused by making people miss flights and hospital appointments, or job interviews, or thwarting parents’ attempts to collect their children from school. That kind of thing.
And regardless of the pretext offered on any given day, you do have to marvel at the moral vacancy of it all, as illustrated by Mr Gothman in the tweet above. Apparently, it “isn’t hard to understand” that the way to make people sympathetic with your cause, whatever it may be this week, is to screw them over – because you can – and then applaud yourself for doing so. Somewhat harder to understand, at least for Mr Gothman, is that his go-to solution, of which he’s so proud – i.e., the gratuitous trapping of motorists – is a moral non sequitur and rather like saying, “I’m troubled by the plight of the Javan rhinoceros, so I’m going to start spitting at the elderly and keying random cars, and then boast about it.”
The Obstructing-Traffic-And-Frustrating-Random-People-While-Feeling-Immensely-Self-Satisfied Thing™ first came to my attention during the Occupy fad-cum-gap-year, and it rapidly degenerated into opportunist thuggery and self-indulgent farce. A high point being when a Mao-ling mother placed her four-year-old daughter on active train tracks.
Since then, in the name of “teaching others to care,” we’ve seen self-righteous mobs deliberately blocking the paths of ambulances and giving paramedics the finger, while exulting in their power to alarm, frustrate and coerce. And to endanger lives with collective impunity. And we’ve seen fearless, selfless anti-Trump protestors surrounding and terrorising a lone female driver by trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face, and videoing her distress for their own amusement and peer-group cred.
And at which point, what you’re seeing isn’t politics or protest. It’s sociopathy.
We’ve also seen Mao-lings at UC San Diego running into traffic – on a motorway, in the middle of the night. Because terrorising random motorists is the woke thing to do, apparently. And then, when one of them got hurt – which will tend to happen if you swarm onto a motorway in the dark – the Mao-lings immediately started blaming someone else – anyone but the people who actually chose to run into the path of oncoming traffic. And of course we’ve seen things like these items here and many others in the archives. All done in the name of forcing others to be compassionate. And comply.
Also this:
If your cause requires bullying to get the message across perhaps it, and your defense of it, isn’t as righteous as you think it is.
You should see what the cops think of Father Phleger.
If your cause requires bullying to get the message across perhaps it, and your defense of it, isn’t as righteous as you think it is.
The whole Obstructing-Traffic-And-Frustrating-Random-People-While-Feeling-Immensely-Self-Satisfied Thing™ first came to my attention during the Occupy fad-cum-gap-year, and it rapidly degenerated into opportunist thuggery and self-indulgent farce. A high point being when a Mao-ling mother placed her four-year-old daughter on active train tracks.
Since then, in the name of “teaching others to care,” we’ve seen self-righteous mobs deliberately blocking the paths of ambulances and giving paramedics the finger, while exulting in their power to alarm, frustrate and coerce. And to endanger lives with collective impunity. And we’ve seen fearless, selfless anti-Trump protestors surrounding and terrorising a lone female driver by trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face, and videoing her distress for their own amusement and peer-group cred.
We’ve also seen Mao-lings at UC San Diego running into traffic – on a motorway, in the middle of the night. Because terrorising random motorists is the woke thing to do, apparently. And then, when someone got hurt – which will tend to happen if you swarm onto a motorway in the dark – the Mao-lings immediately started blaming someone else – anyone but the people who actually chose this course of action and declared it a good idea.
And of course we’ve seen things like these items here and many others in the archives. All done in the name of forcing others to be compassionate, and comply.
And at which point, what you’re seeing isn’t politics or protest. It’s sociopathy.
And we’ve seen fearless, selfless anti-Trump protestors surrounding and terrorising a lone female driver by trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face, and videoing her distress for their own amusement and peer-group cred.
The difference between leftwing ‘activism’ and the zombie apocalypse gets smaller by the day.
The difference between leftwing ‘activism’ and the zombie apocalypse gets smaller by the day.
Well, when your idea of ‘activist’ piety entails trapping and mocking a disabled woman, or preventing an ambulance from getting to an emergency, or trying to shatter glass into some random woman’s face, it’s hard to guess where the cut-off point is, the line that wouldn’t be crossed.
Perhaps outright murder would be a step too far. But hey, based on what?
“Baby, don’t make me hurt you.”
So, if a mob blocked me on the highway and started rocking and banging on my car while howling slogans at me, do you think a jury would believe that I was feeling a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm?
Because, in most jurisdictions, that’s justification for defending myself with my firearm.
Do they not realize that that’s the next logical step?
Because, in most jurisdictions, that’s justification for defending myself with my firearm.
As we’ve seen at places like Evergreen State College, the powers that be many times approve of the intimidation and deliberately fail to prevent it, if not actively encourage it and/or aid and abet it. See also, Maxine Waters and her calls to harass and intimidate people with different political views than she. It’s all part of a plan to obtain power by means other than democratic processes.
If your cause requires bullying to get the message across perhaps it, and your defense of it, isn’t as righteous as you think it is.
I suppose it depends on whether you’re amused by making people miss flights and hospital appointments, or job interviews, or thwarting their attempt to collect their children from school. That kind of thing.
“Murder and shooting rates are sky-high in certain Chicago neighborhoods, so let’s terrorize drivers who are trying to avoid those neighborhoods altogether. Because THEY’RE the bad guys.”
Liberal logic, gotta love it. I’m surprised they weren’t shaking down drivers for money while they were at it.
Liberal logic, gotta love it.
Regardless of the pretext offered on any given day, you have to marvel at the moral vacancy of it all, as illustrated by Mr Gothman in the tweet above. Apparently, it “isn’t hard to understand” that the way to make people sympathetic with your cause, whatever it may be this week, is to screw them over – because you can – and then applaud yourself for doing so.
Contrary to their pretensions and delusions, I don’t think the clowns who indulge in such behaviour are good people. At best, their claims are a result of idiocy, arrogance and narcissism – an utter disregard for the people on whom they impose in order to flatter themselves. At worst, it’s an excuse for outright sociopathy.
Note also the dog whistle: “instead of just driving by on their way back to the suburbs”.
There’s your justification … it’s ok to harass these people because they live in the suburbs, which makes them the despised bourgeoisie, only interested in earning money and living in a nice house in a nice quiet street, paying their taxes and not being a burden on society, the bastards. Besides which, they’re so uncool and un-vibrant.
Perhaps outright murder would be a step too far. But hey, based on what?
Steve Scalise might have an opinion on that.
Note also the dog whistle: “instead of just driving by on their way back to the suburbs”.
See Douglas Murray on Simon Schama’s sneering references to suburbia.
The link to Douglas Murray’s description of Schama’s commentary appears to have suffered from link rot.
Though when I searched via Bing, I found the same link and it worked. Odd.
Remove the “new.” from the link provided for Douglas Murray’s blog, and the link works.
Link updated. Thanks, all.
We’ve also seen Mao-lings at UC San Diego running into traffic – on a motorway, in the middle of the night.
I’m waiting for them to start putting their hands in fire to give it to the man.
I’m waiting for them to start putting their hands in fire to give it to the man.
Well, they do seem to be quite stupid. But burning one’s own hands isn’t sufficiently inconvenient to other people, and something tells me that imposing on others, dominating them, via mob coercion, is the real objective. That’s the high they want. The rest is contrivance, an excuse.
[ Added: ]
I mean, if your go-to solution to almost any political issue, or alleged issue – the solution that you get excited about and feel proud of – is to gratuitously fuck over random people – people with no obvious personal involvement in the grievance in question – it does seem a little… suspicious.
You are not getting people to care by blocking roads…
True, but still ignores the fact that whatever you get a significant number of people to believe, if you intimidate enough of them such that they are afraid to think or do otherwise than what the mob thinks/believes, you will win. Granted using violence tends to tip the hand to nefarious motives, however if you intimidate people in the proper, more subtle manner, the majority will follow you. You don’t need to be the Strong Horse, you only need to intimidate people into believing you are the Strong Horse. Once that is portal is opened to the minds of the masses, you can insert damn near anything you please. Venezuela isn’t caving to reason. NK hasn’t caved to reason. I can see people being trapped in such situations, being angry about such even. Yet those very same people will turn around and blame Trump or whomever for “upsetting” the protesters. I really believe that this indoctrination is much thicker and deeper than many on the right are willing to admit.
Context, just getting back from lunch with three coworkers. Got into the global warming thing. Nothing I had to say was taken even remotely seriously. Was even asked, by a guy I’ve worked with for two years now, if I believed in dinosaurs. I was the one impervious to “facts”. This belief that rational discussion and such, outside of a media and education onslaught of indoctrination, will change anyone’s mind is very much wishful thinking.
Ask him what he thinks the global temperature was back when dinosaurs existed.
Ask him what he thinks the global temperature was back when dinosaurs existed.
Yeah, it’s not that easy. Three on one debate, not that I asked for it but I just got tired of hearing the BS, smart ass comments only work when you’re on the majority side. Hence the more general problem to which I refer. My point is, there is no debating, no appeal to rational thought. There are people in Venezuela right now who know the real score. You think anyone listens to them? My general point is that rational debate and logic did not get us into these situations and they surely will not get us out.
Nothing I had to say was taken even remotely seriously. Was even asked, by a guy I’ve worked with for two years now, if I believed in dinosaurs. I was the one impervious to “facts”.
I have the benefit of being 6’3″ and built like a linebacker. I put a stop to many of these situations long ago by telling such confreres, in a quiet and amiable tone of voice, that I would be happy to have a reasonable conversation about the accuracy and plausibility of anthropogenic global warming claims – but at the first hint of personal insult or condescension I was going to pick up the table and hit them with it until they stopped moving.
They’re almost positive I’m bluffing, but none of them want to take me up on it.
I have the benefit of being 6’3″ and built like a linebacker.
Yeah, funny you mention that…he’s 6′ 3″ about 230 solid, I’m 6′ 4″, 243 (this morning) not so solid any more (I can still swim a mile every morning though). He’s also 30 years younger. Not that it matters. Not gonna pick a physical fight over silly political BS. Either way, you are kinda making my more general point. It’s all about physical, and more generally, social intimidation. Facts and logic are irrelevant. I was getting bombarded with facts, straw men, appeals to authority, etc. I was the one impervious to facts. This was well established by the voting majority, everything they’ve ever heard, and (not that it would have come to that but these things are always present) the physical power factor. Nothing rational matters in a world where the vast majority of people believe a thing and of the other minority who don’t believe that thing a significantly visible number believe some other BS idiotic thing. And where academic, news, and media megaphones amplify both extremes.
God, reading that sound f’n whiny but no time to better wordsmith it. The point I’m trying to get across is that being sure that you are “right” about something is zero reason to be comfortable about that fact. That’s not what carries the day. I truly feel way too many non-leftists understand this. BTW, every one of those three guys I went to lunch with today is a “Republican”.
The reason Phather Phlager is pulling crap like blocking the Ryan in daylight is very simple; if he tried to interdict the drug crime in his own parish of St. Sabinas one summer Saturday night when all the homies are out doing biz, he wouldn’t live to see Sunday morning. And he knows it.
A perennial source of amusement and disgust to Chicagoland, Phather Phlager. How he’s managed to keep his phreek show going for decades is a source of much theorizing. Pictures of a cardinal having sex with an archbishop seems to be the top contender as to why he’s gotten away with it all this time.
if your go-to solution to almost any political issue, or alleged issue – the solution that you get excited about and feel proud of – is to gratuitously fuck over random people – people with no obvious personal involvement in the grievance in question – it does seem a little… suspicious.
That.
That.
Well, it’s a moral non sequitur and a bit like saying, “I’m troubled by the plight of the Javan rhinoceros, so I’m going to start spitting at the elderly and keying random cars, and then boast about it.”
Well, what else CAN we do to help the Javan rhinoceros?
Our heat is back, how are things in sweatie old England?
Not gonna pick a physical fight over silly political BS.
Oh, neither am I. At all (I work in a professional office, I’m not about to commit career suicide).
The point is to remind the far too many outrage fetishists and smug moral preeners that notions like politeness, courtesy and good manners were invented to prevent people from resolving their differences with violence. Abjuring those notions has consequences that such people have forgotten; it is occasionally meet to remind them.
Three on one debate, not that I asked for it but I just got tired of hearing the BS…
I’ve been in a fair number of these myself. Sometimes, they go as you describe, with me beating my head on a brick wall and getting nowhere. Other times, you find out that one or two of the people at the table aren’t True Believers, and there’s a flood of relief as the preference cascade comes crashing down and people find themselves free to stop with the pretense.
I applaud you for making the effort. I hope that if you should find yourself in similar straits again, you’ll find a more sympathetic audience.
“Because, in most jurisdictions, that’s justification for defending myself with my firearm.”
Or driving through/over the thugs.
“The reason Phather Phlager is pulling crap like blocking the Ryan in daylight is very simple…”
I’m afraid it’s worse than that: he’s a radical leftist who places all the blame for all problems on “capitalism” and “white people” and “Amerikkka”. He doesn’t really want to solve problems, but rather cause problems in order to seize tyrannical power. Dante had a place in Hell for evil priests.
“what cops think of Father Pfleger”
A direct link to the blog:
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2018/07/worth-thousand-words.html?m=1
I work in a cube farm in a blue ‘industry’ in a blue city in a blue state. A day or two after the Ft. Hood shooting, the most outspoken (read: loudest) of the leftistas in the office was spouting off about how it absolutely proved that potential victims being armed was no defense because it happened on a military base.
I snapped.
Like a dry twig.
Once I was done explaining to her (in professional language and at a professional decibel level) that military bases were just as much ‘gun-free’ zones as your average elementary school she was finally struck speechless. The only sound in the room was someone out among the cubes declaring “Yeah!”.
I’m afraid it’s worse than that: he’s a radical leftist who places all the blame for all problems on “capitalism” and “white people” and “Amerikkka”.
Heh, drop the “white people” and replace the “kkk” with the standard ‘c’ and I just remembered that this is how the lunch conversation with my Republican co-workers started this afternoon. It was originally my frustration with the “It’s all our fault” nonsense regarding terrorism that bled into a discussion about “breaking our dependency on oil” (Tesla/renewables is the magic bullet, you see) that turned into “You’re a global warming denier”. Again, I don’t relate this seeking sympathy but to make the far more important point that the problem we face is much bigger than most on the right (especially as my coworkers are nominally on the right) are willing to acknowledge.
Or driving through/over the thugs.
While blowing the horn.
I don’t know about that, but a good rule of thumb in America is that even showing, much less using, a gun will cost you AT LEAST $10,000.00. And if you have time to think of this, don’t get the gun out.
The above does not apply if you are a professional criminal.
…but a good rule of thumb in America is that even showing, much less using, a gun will cost you AT LEAST $10,000.00.
Not in America, the blue states, maybe.
WTP – the solution is to screw with them mercilessly, pretend you have had an epiphany and gone over to their side, but be rabidly evangelical about it, and make up phony data and stats, quote bogus papers. It is just like the Angry and Useless studies, they’ll nod sagely rather than admit you might know something they don’t.
Nah. They’re not stupid enough to fall for that. I really wish discussions of politics would stay outside the office. But given that they’ve politicized all the things, what is there that is safe to discuss? And again, these are Republicans. We have a very deep problem on our hands and it should not be taken lightly.
“Baby, don’t make me hurt you.”
Again, as so often, note the fundamental arrogance. If you browse the Twitter thread and the comments by Mr Gothman, it’s hard to miss the casual, indeed prideful, dismissal of other people’s commitments and their need to get somewhere. Random commuters, about whom Mr Gothman and the protestors know nothing at all, will, we’re told, be “impacted” and taught to care – by which he means made to agree with the assumptions and priorities of their self-anointed betters.
In his mind, random motorists going about their business are somehow collectively guilty and inadequate, and in need of moral correction – by the enlightened and compassionate. People so enlightened and compassionate that they openly delight in frustrating, harassing and intimidating others, arbitrarily, while feeling full of themselves and chanting “Shut it down!” People so enlightened and compassionate that their response to trapping thousands of random people is to exult in triumph.
The Danish Immigration Minister knows how to deal with these sort of protests:
https://twitter.com/WorlMedia/status/1016263228828024832
God, reading that sound f’n whiny but no time to better wordsmith it. The point I’m trying to get across is that being sure that you are “right” about something is zero reason to be comfortable about that fact. That’s not what carries the day. I truly feel way too many non-leftists understand this. BTW, every one of those three guys I went to lunch with today is a “Republican”.
I think it’s a world-wide phenomenon. I try not to get dragged into political “conversations’ (for want of a better term) in my local, but sometimes the vanity and intransigence of soi-disant “socialists” who drink in my local just gets to me.
Sample conversation:
AT (“Socialist”, comfortably off widower, lives off a very nice final salary pension courtesy of the late wife and rental income from property long since paid for, owner of a modern BMW, a Lotus and a classic Jaguar): Marx was right when he said “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs”.
Oik: Marx didn’t actually say that.
AT: He didn’t? Well, anyway, it’s something I believe in. It’s the way mankind should be.
Oik: Fine. Who gets to decide?
AT: Decide what?
Oik: What everybody’s various means and needs are. Somebody’s going to have to referee. Which one of your cars would you get to keep?
Another:
LM (fifty-something, works in the music industry, former cokehead extraordinaire, “socialist” because it means “I care about people”): *Launches into diatribe against Brexit and pontificates about the meanness of spirit, provincialism and plain ignorance of those who voted “Leave”.
Oik. OK- before we go any further, can you please tell me who currently holds the presidency of the Council Of The European Union?
LM: Donald Tusk.
Oik: No, he’s President of The European Council.
LM: Same thing.
Oik. No, it isn’t. They are two separate bodies; the one I referred to is quite important as it’s nominally the upper house of a bi-cameral legislature and therefore wields great sovereign power over us. So, who’s the president?
LM. Er, Jean-Claude Juncker.
Oik: No, he’s the president of the European Commission.
LM: *exhibits bafflement*
Oik: OK- it’s Bulgaria.*
LM: Bollocks.
Oik: *uses pub wi-fi to prove the point*.
LM: Well, that doesn’t really amount to much, does it? It’s not like it’s actually going to affect matters much is it?
Oik: Hang on a minute. Until I told you about this a couple of minutes ago, you had no idea how this thing worked, but now you are presuming to tell me otherwise….
And so it goes on. *Now it’s Austria, but when we had this conversation it was Bulgaria.
Well exactly. One of the guys with whom I was having this discussion, the younger most passionate one, the one who asked if I believe dinosaurs existed, drives a good distance to and from work in a big honkin Chevy pickup truck…the bigger model, forget which that is right now. In fact when I was considering replacing my truck, a secondary vehicle that I use only for truck stuff, and I was considering getting a Tacoma, he’s telling me nooo dude. You need to get a Tundra. But hey, I’m the impervious one.
The Danish Immigration Minister knows how to deal with these sort of protests:
Therein lies a problem, no reason some Jan Sekspakke shouldn’t be able to do something some government functionary other than maybe the head of state can.
Nah. They’re not stupid enough to fall for that.
If they are stupid enough to fall for the anthropogenic global
warmingclimate changeclimate disruptionclimate hysteria du jour nonsense, they’ll fall for nigh anything, but if you don’t want to go that route, just mock them.Therein lies a problem
Beat me to it. That clause struck me as painfully revealing. Who automatically assumes that public servants should be privileged over the public?
@WTP
Go with the Tacoma. You won’t be disappointed.
Sherman,
Yes, that is what I bought. Very happy with it so far. Big step up from the 2001 Ranger. Plus 4WD and crew cabin, which I sorely needed. Just wish it was 3 inches shorter.
Muldoon,
But that is what I am really trying to communicate here. They are not “stupid” in most any other sense. I’m not saying they’re geniuses or anything but these are very intelligent people. This is the problem. The megaphone of the media, academia, and the general culture has equated critical thinking about AGW with membership in the Flat Earth Society. Writing such people off as “stupid” is whistling past the graveyard.
Heh…rereading that…Extended cab, not crew cab. Like it matters or anyone cares but…OCD again…
WTP: I had the good fortune to take my Earth & Atmospheric Sciences course at Georgia Tech under a man widely known as a “denier” (though I didn’t know that when I signed up). I was already something of an aggressive AGW skeptic, but I could see others in that class absolutely blindsided when he brought in detailed information on the rock cycle. It was simply not something that was expected – not only a seed of doubt, but from an avenue they had not even been taught to consider.
Geologist Unperson: “Hey, kids – did you know that erosion patterns, tectonic upheaval, and sequestration of carbonates have a larger effect on levels of CO2 than any human activity? And that CO2 release accelerates with increases in temperature? I’m not suggesting anything by this (like that CO2 levels track temperature changes instead of causing them), *wink*.”
I’m greatly paraphrasing of course, but it was a treat. He went into the chemical processes in detail, to a captive audience.
Sporkatus,
Yes, well yesterday I was getting bombarded with the different “markers” or some such of CO2 that can be seen in ice core samples starting in 1855 which are different than natural CO2 or some such. I tried to point out that the amount of industrial pollution going on in 1855 was so infinitesimally small that the margins of error on such sampling would be highly suspect. Which is mostly my issue with AGW in general, these things are not as measurable, at least with the parameters of confidence factors being spouted, to come to the conclusions that are being arrived at with such a significant degree of confidence. I’m not even disputing AGW or warming in general, just that the level of confidence that it is happening, to the degree it is being advertised as happening, is way out of proportion to what is humanly measurable. That and that I’ve seen this pattern before when we were “headed to a new ice age” 30 years ago. That’s all I’m willing to get into on the subject. Yet even this little bit of disagreement casts me into the lump of deniers of all science. Because They’re Blinding Me With Science. And note, I have to work with these guys so…and one is my lead. Actually all three are in one way or another people I report to.
Heh…so hearing over the wall today…”Fear is an illusion my friend. It was created by people in power to control the masses”
It’s easy to get dragged down into the weeds of confusing detail when talking about things this complicated, and you can torture the data to say just about anything. When dealing with people who lack a basic understanding of the scientific method, I find it more useful to ignore all the research malfeasance and just go straight to the basic theoretical model:
It’s easy to get dragged down into the weeds of confusing detail when talking about things this complicated, and you can torture the data to say just about anything. When dealing with people who lack a basic understanding of the scientific method, I find it more useful to ignore all the research malfeasance and just go straight to the basic theoretical model:
“The thing about science is you don’t need to know all the details to evaluate it. What the theory says either matches reality, or it doesn’t. Now, we’ve been at this for twenty years. Have any – any – of the claims made about global warming catastrophe actually happened? More hurricanes? California underwater? No more snow? Anything?
Yeah, funny you should mention that. Precisely where I tried to take it with two of them. I was shown a .gov web site with shrinking polar ice caps. Because they are shrinking. Depending on where you move the start/end points. I’ve gotten into very similar conversations about the relative values of certain stocks and/or indexes and demonstrated to people that by moving the goal posts slightly one way or the other, you can make radical changes appear. I’ve even tried to tie such complexity analysis into AGW discussions in the past. It really doesn’t matter. And like I said in my last post, “I’ve seen this pattern before when we were “headed to a new ice age” 30 years ago”. It’s like arguing religion. Or more specifically, (and to be clear I’m not an atheist) trying to get most religious persons to consider the possibility that there is no God and/or what that might mean. Poof, I’m an atheist. Heh…and don’t get me started on virgins having babies.
Rafi,
The difference between leftwing ‘activism’ and the zombie apocalypse gets smaller by the day.
For example.
Seriously, who sets themselves up as a “human piñata”?
It’s easy to get dragged down into the weeds of confusing detail when talking about things this complicated, and you can torture the data to say just about anything. …Have any – any – of the claims made about global warming catastrophe actually happened? More hurricanes? California underwater? No more snow? Anything?
Another useful thing to do: ask “do these global warming catastrophists behave like honest people, or like liars who are trying to conceal evidence and silence those who disagree?”
Right, I’m off to a niece’s 21st birthday meal. There will be lasagna, wine and, I’ve been warned, chatting about something called Love Island. Which I’m now Googling.
Oh.
It’s the media’s fault for uncritically amplifying the alarmism of the professional propagandists of the Climate Cult. People will side with whatever they hear repeated and whatever they think will result in the least amount of hassle to themselves. Then they become emotionally or “intellectually” invested and can’t back out of the position since they essentially allowed themselves to be intimidated into it.
I was shown a .gov web site with shrinking polar ice caps.
You let yourself get dragged into the weeds.
“do these global warming catastrophists behave like honest people, or like liars who are trying to conceal evidence and silence those who disagree?”
Another variant: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
One tactic I’ve used is bypassing all the virtue signalling and going straight to the end game. India and China are by far the largest CO2 emitters, and they’ve made it quite clear that they are not going to cripple their economy with silly international agreements about limiting emissions. If things really are as bad as they say, then India and China are engaged in what amounts to a casus belli against the rest of the world. Europe and The Americas could go zero-carbon overnight and it would make no difference, according to the doomsayers’ own arguments.
Clearly, then, the only way to save the planet is a pre-emptive invasion and conquest of India and China.
Then they become emotionally or “intellectually” invested and can’t back out of the position
It’s orders of magnitude easier to con someone than to get them to admit they’ve been conned. That’s the real problem here. Acknowledging the overwhelming evidence against CAGW is tantamount to saying “I’m stupid”.
Does the Love Boat stop at Love Island?
Speaking of things versus reality, I give you the case for a pregnant male emoji.
Riiiight.
Someone haz a sad. It never ceases to amaze me the things these idiots come up with over which to fret.
“A slightly differently sized baseball is vitally important, but I guess there just wasn’t enough time to consider transgender and non-binary people.”
=====
There are far more softballs in existence, and they are infinitely more useful.
. . . something called Love Island. Which I’m now Googling.
Oh.
Yeah, just from the title, that sounds like a futility show.
SJW? SRB is closer (self-righteous bullies).
“…but a good rule of thumb in America is that even showing, much less using, a gun will cost you AT LEAST $10,000.00.
Not in America, the blue states, maybe.”
I hate to break it to you, Farnsworth, but as a TX CHL holder, I can tell you it’s not true.
Yes, we have some of the most robust self-defense laws in creation. We’ve also had mayors and police chiefs in places like Houston, Austin, and any other blue jurisdictions openly state that they don’t care; any report of “man with a gun” will earn you an arrest with appropriate force, a confiscated gun, and a charge of “disturbing the peace”, etc. Never mind any charges that come about from any stray rounds; TX does not have a law that says those charges will be made against your assailant. If it came from your gun, it’s on you.
“Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.”
Then there’s the civil side. There is no such thing as loser pays. While section 83 does immunize you IF you were justified, it doesn’t prevent the suit from ever being filed. While you can use that as a justification, there’s still going to be a trial.
https://www.uslawshield.com/texas-can-you-be-sued-in-civil-court-for-self-defense/
In all circumstances, you will be shelling out for lawyers, and in those aforementioned blue jurisdictions, the jury pool is “filtered” for those who aren’t gun friendly.
These left-wing idiots have thus far been content to perform the random, violent acts of stupidity in areas were much of the population is either clueless or easily cowed. Eventually, they are going to try this in the wrong area and learn that many Americans are armed and will use force to defend their lives. It is quite likely to quickly spiral downhill for left-wing idiots at that point. This is inevitable given the left’s clueless, self-righteous moral preening and utter stupidity.