The Force of Modifying Behavior

[82_28]

82_28 says the post would have been called out had it been about race or gender? Wow, just wow. So impressive.

I was saying I missed it if you read my comment. How can a mod stop something he or she missed at the time? Answer: They can't. I'm not going to make some appeal, but most here know me and I "the" poster of the offending comment. Furthermore, I am basically here to ban or suspend people for risible or offensive posts which I have yet to do since I assumed the mighty throne upon which I sit. I am still a poster/commenter first. Trust me, I do struggle with the ethics of that.

[Sounder]

It's funny, I got a chuckle from the irony of being advised by Karmamatterz to take a deep breath before one hits submit when they are angry and want to assault someone,----- because I had not read new additions as I was in a hurry to address the Elvis outrage.

I agree with Karmamattez, I took a deep breath all day long, found what I found, seeming by chance, and am confident, for the moment anyway, that my part is trying to reduce bullshit, rather than piling it up.

[Laodicean]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auWA7hMh5hc

[Elvis]

I for one am outraged that I espoused violence as punishment for the vile snakes who, on behalf of the oil industry, maliciously sue climate scientists for the purposes of destroying the scientists' and their families' lives, and to quash legitimate research.

I changed my mind. I think we should give them big salaries, let them live in numerous fine homes and drive expensive cars, and we should give them all a kitten and gratefully fluff their pillows and tuck them into bed at night.

[RocketMan]

I think there's something a bit bourgeois about this type of tone policing... I mean does someone here actually believe that Elvis is advocating for mob justice?

He was talking about a class of people whose criminality is so vast it's almost incomprehensible. The ethos of taking it on the other cheek year after year, while the criminality and injustice perpetuates itself without opposition or accountability in the ruling class engenders rage, I think that's understandable.

I for one am outraged that I espoused violence as punishment for the vile snakes who, on behalf of the oil industry, maliciously sue climate scientists for the purposes of destroying the scientists' and their families' lives, and to quash legitimate research.

I changed my mind. I think we should give them big salaries, let them live in numerous fine homes and drive expensive cars, and we should give them all a kitten and gratefully fluff their pillows and tuck them into bed at night.

[Sounder]

The people in the 'climate denial' organizations who are maliciously suing climate scientists just to ruin their lives and stop climate research (because they know where it's going) probably should be dragged through the streets and lynched. Some behaviors should be "modified."

Elvis, you are confusing two different categories in order to soft-pedal Dr. Evil's proclivity toward violence.

Dr. Evil wrote....

I am looking forward to the deniers being dragged through the streets and lynched though. I hope they livestream it.

Which you changed to: " people in the 'climate denial' organizations who are maliciously suing climate scientists"

I hope you can understand, that while I am not a 'denier', according to the doctors definition, I am, and therefor have good reason to do my best to affect circumstances that could lead to actual rather than proposed lynching.

As to the second smaller class that really deserve the lynching, can you provide examples, there must be many, and do they overwhelm the damaged careers of 'skeptics' like Judy Wood and many weather folk from the early days of the AGW rollout?

Oh yeah, and how much money has been spent inflating careers in order to support this Mcguffin or squirrel.

And again, do Piers Corbyn and James Corbett also require behavior modification.

Do I need behavior modification? One thing leads to another.

Is having contrary ideas now considered behavior?

[thrulookingglass]

What "justice" does the hand of violence deliver? What problem does violence solve? Now that this thread has de-volved...

The manifestation of violence is the obstacle.

Pyrrhic victories are catastrophic.

[Karmamatterz]

I think there's something a bit bourgeois about this type of tone policing... I mean does someone here actually believe that Elvis is advocating for mob justice?

Words matter, otherwise why bother writing them.

He, just like anyone else, should be held to the same standard as those who nitpick, handwringing, freak out, throw tantrums etc over every little word that someone they ideologically oppose writes. In case you have not noticed many regular posters on RI have a mentality of its good for thee, but not for me. I'm lumping people together here into a collective, which seems appropriate. If this board is going to promote standards for better living and the ideal unicorn way of life then they need to be more careful about what words they use.

If however, they want to get off their high horses and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and modify their behavior to suit their ideology or way of life then whateves, doesn't matter.

Pick one and be consistent. Much easier and less stressful to not preach how others should modify their behavior to mirror your own beliefs.

[coffin_dodger]

Rocketman said:

I think there's something a bit bourgeois about this type of tone policing... I mean does someone here actually believe that Elvis is advocating for mob justice?

I happen to believe that Drivel would enjoy a lynching, if it were an enemy of his. Because his posting history is riddled with violent fantasies of retribution. I was shocked that Elvis agreed with Drivel's sentiments (because I hadn't seen that kind of remark from Elvis before) - but that is what can happen to some minds when exposed to a diet of violent fantasies promising revenge for the perceived injustices that others are perpetrating - and it's happened here at RI.

At some point in the last 30 years, for many, the old adage 'two wrongs don't make a right' has been completely lost - or rather, eradicated. Now, revenge is sweet. Revenge is the best course of action. These things don't just surface on their own, they are conjured into reality by impressing these thoughts into the population. Five-eyes film and TV perpetuate the message.

Anyhow, it's a paradoxical conundrum. For The World to be free of an Empire, The Empire must tear itself apart. How will that happen? Lynching mobs within the empire, seeking out each other over climate, politics, energy and sexuality will do the job. The hate generated between opposing groups in the USA is already enormous. Meanwhile, the rest of the world holds it's breath, waiting for the spark. It's not an ideal solution, so I call it out where I see it.

If you don't like the bourgoise policing type, don't read my comments.

[seemslikeadream]

.

[Laodicean]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLuZjpxmsZQ

[DrEvil]

These RI fisticuffs always get you by surprise. You're just minding your own business, clicking threads, and suddenly someone is equating a fellow board member with the KKK and the Nazis. The escalation is so quick and stealthy.

About as stealthy as the casual belching out a comment about lynching people.

Dr. Evil, where in in the "science" does the broader discussion allow for debate? Science after all should allow for a wide range of debate on things like computer models that are to a degree based on speculation. People that want to engage in intelligent debate shouldn't be called deniers anymore than someone who questions some of the various vaccines forced on us be called an anti-vaxer. Personally, I'm not denying our climate is changing, nor do I deny many vaccines are incredible positive for almost most people. My whole family wishes my mother had gotten the TB vaccine instead of the damn disease. We wish her brother hadn't gotten polio.

Humans are able to impact the climate in good and very bad ways. The Earth also does its own thing. For anyone to claim they have the perfect model that can go unquestioned is absurd. That goes against science itself, which is a rational practice which includes a number of standards that should be followed. What if I want to bring into the conversation how volcanoes impact the climate, is that allowed? Or is the discussion ONLY about how humans impact the climate? Your answer will be telling as to what "science" you believe is rational. Climate modeling and even the damn weather forecast have a long way to go. If you want to try and lynch me for writing that go ahead...give it your best shot bud. I'll PM any of you my home address if you want to travel here and take it outside.

There is another thread that was recently active discussing climate. Before I could get the time to post something the howling and shrill voices screaming deniers drowned out any rational voices. One of the barometers I use to judge various topics is just how vested is the media in the entire climate change/global warming conversation. Any rational person can see the media is batshit crazy about the topic. So much so that there is some really for shit reporting going on. I encourage rational discussion about climate and really any topic. Any further mention of lynchings, punching or any type of assault will not be tolerated. If you think that is acceptable then crawl over to the scum sites of the extreme right where they advocate that type of behavior. As it stands right now RI has already tipped over the edge of extremism and is no better off than some of those extreme nut jobs on the far right.

What would be great for all of us is if people took a big deep breath before they hit submit when they are angry and want to assault someone. We really should be working harder at how to have good discussions rather than puking out thoughts of live streaming lynchings.

The models are used to predict future trends, but we don't need them to see that things are changing right now. The temperature is going up, the oceans are getting warmer and rising and the glaciers are melting.

Volcanoes contribute about 200 million tons of CO2 each year. Humans contribute about 24 billion tons (basically humans are a continually erupting super volcano).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-humans/

The sun contributes roughly +/-0.1C to the warming. Humans about 1.0C.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the- ... l-warming/

Natural cycles happen over centuries and millennia, not decades like we're seeing now, and they're accounted for in the models.

The worst case-scenarios in the models from 10-20 years ago are now the best-case scenarios, and we're routinely seeing stories where scientists are shocked or appalled at how rapidly things are moving. That's their version of shouting 'The End is Nigh!'. The latest IPCC report, which is a conservative estimate to make everyone happy, is terrifying reading.

There's plenty of room for debate, but not if you're going to repeat talking points that have been refuted over and over again for years on end. That just shows you haven't been paying attention, and to most people who have been paying attention it will automatically label you as a denier, because 99% of the people who bring those things up are.

So, in the spirit of the OP, you should probably modify your behavior to pay more attention to what the scientists are saying and less to what the paid shills and vested interests are saying.

[DrEvil]

The people in the 'climate denial' organizations who are maliciously suing climate scientists just to ruin their lives and stop climate research (because they know where it's going) probably should be dragged through the streets and lynched. Some behaviors should be "modified."

Elvis, you are confusing two different categories in order to soft-pedal Dr. Evil's proclivity toward violence.

Dr. Evil wrote....

I am looking forward to the deniers being dragged through the streets and lynched though. I hope they livestream it.

Which you changed to: " people in the 'climate denial' organizations who are maliciously suing climate scientists"

I hope you can understand, that while I am not a 'denier', according to the doctors definition, I am, and therefor have good reason to do my best to affect circumstances that could lead to actual rather than proposed lynching.

As to the second smaller class that really deserve the lynching, can you provide examples, there must be many, and do they overwhelm the damaged careers of 'skeptics' like Judy Wood and many weather folk from the early days of the AGW rollout?

Oh yeah, and how much money has been spent inflating careers in order to support this Mcguffin or squirrel.

And again, do Piers Corbyn and James Corbett also require behavior modification.

Do I need behavior modification? One thing leads to another.

Is having contrary ideas now considered behavior?

Yeah, but see, you are a denier. All you have to do is look at the "How bad is global warming" thread. My favorite is when you posted about underwater volcanoes and concluded they were to blame for the warming, and when shown that the researcher who wrote the paper was saying the exact opposite you decided she wasn't really very trustworthy after all. Or how about that crab fisherman who had seen with his own two eyes that the oceans weren't rising, so obviously all the sensors around the world were lying, so take that Al Gore!

[Karmamatterz]

No, you're not capable of having a discussion about this without the cliche knee-jerk denier! denier!

I wrote:

What if I want to bring into the conversation how volcanoes impact the climate, is that allowed?

What I did not write was that what the magnitude of the volcanic activity is and if it's a minor or major player over long periods of time. Now if I wrote that sorta recently discovered volcanic activity discovered underneath a small area of Antarctica proves that humans are not responsible for the melting ice shelf in that area you have plenty of room to debate the fallacy of my statement. I merely suggested that ONE of the variables in the larger equation is nature, specifically volcanoes. In no way did I entertain the idea that humans are not responsible for a rise in global temperatures and rapid accumulation of green house gases. Nor did I suggest that solar flares, rotting organic matter, El Ninos etc.... outweigh the human impact.

What you did was so typical and trite that it's why sane people roll their eyes at the screamers who look for, and want to read/hear triggers. You were all too eager to be triggered. I used a generic natural variable and you took the bait. Call it trolling, but it was effective in demonstrating the extreme attitudes people have.

What you don't seem to realize is that many people don't know scientific details of the what global warming is all about. You know why? The media has done a shit job of it and also shoddy reporting actually hurts more than it helps. If you're going to cavalierly label people as deniers maybe you should realize that your own behavior and reactions aren't helping. I would wager a very large chunk of the human population doesn't have a highly informed background on what natural variables impact temperatures and how the human impact does. The entire dynamics are extremely complex requiring sophisticated modeling and explanations. Also keep in mind some skeptics think (because of the media) that the goalposts keep moving with the gloom and doom milestones. I'm not saying some skeptics aren't deniers, for sure some probably are. You can be skeptical of certain data or faulty ideas if the goalpost thing is addressed poorly, which I think it is.

You screeching about lynchings and assaulting people doesn't advance the cause. You only make yourself look like a violent crack pot.

I give little credence to paid shills, doesn't mean I don't listen to what they are saying. I give just as little credence to people running around screaming that doomsday is around the corner. Learning how to understand your "enemies" or opponents viewpoint is critical to helping them understand how they are wrong or misinformed and for you to educate them. But why bother with that when it's easier to just lynch or punch them.

My point was proven, rational discussion is not possible with extremists who promote violence as a means to an end.

[Sounder]

Dr. Evil wrote....

Yeah, but see, you are a denier.

And so it's A-OK to suggest that I should be lynched? Yikes. I'll try to keep my distance.

Thanks for being honest about your sentiments Dr. I kind of miss AD with his addled avocation of violence, but with you, such clarity.


Karmamatterz wrote.....

My point was proven, rational discussion is not possible with extremists who promote violence as a means to an end.

I have always considered claims to righteousness to be a most dangerous thing. Trouble is, in this society, the voices that are most extreme from both sides get the air time. It makes it hard for normal people, who mostly want to get along with everyone, to become involved in rational exchanges.