There are uncontacted Amazon tribes with no concept of written language that read that as sarcastic, but for a doper with your tenure I can’t imagine it’s even in the top thousand most sarcastic comments you’ve ever seen.
My screen name has nothing to do with Sam Stone, but is a reference to I don’t want to be the person to cast the first stone, but I’ll happily be the second.
And Jesus said of the woman taken in adultery “Whomever is without sin, let them cast the first stone”. And the crowd was sore wrought and ashamed, and began to slink away, and then suddenly a stone came flying from the crowd, striking the woman taken in adultery and killing her instantly.
I try not to post long meandering screeds about how persecuted I am. But, as here, when the topic for debate includes the apparently unsettled question of whether there exists here a general attitude that’s hostile to conservatives qua conservatives, I don’t think it’s giving in to too much angst to set my ennui aside and share my experience.
I think one reason for it is the modern brand of conservatism in America.
The conversation should be, “Global warming is a problem how should we deal with it?” And the conservative guy is all, “Cap and trade will let the market deal with it, and will keep costs low.” And the liberal guy is all, “If we mandate transitions to sustainable power we can, for modest investments, make the US the country to follow.”
But for at least the last few years the conservative response to, “Global warming is a problem, how should we deal with it?” is: “Fuck you, global warming ain’t real, you gullible twat.”
Conservatives get a lot of guff, because they are specifically advocating nonsense. Every country in the first world does healthcare better than us. Their answer is to keep doing what we’re doing, only twice as hard.
Our debt is spiraling out of control. Their answer is to cut taxes on rich people.
Our economy is stalled in recovery from the Great Recession. Their answer is to cut taxes on rich people.
I miss the days of the sane conservative. I just want normal people speaking for the right, but when Levin, Limbaugh, Beck and the various she-devils talk nothing but nonsense about how the left is literally planning to put the right in concentration camps, you get enraged loons like SA and Shodan and Clothy.
I think in a normal environment you’d do better as well. Since your desire to knee-jerk defend the right would be put to use on more reasonable subjects.
This criticism is not misplaced: there are absolutely conservatives who obstinately deny, in the face of strong evidence, certain key facts. And global climate change is such an area.
But I think that your objection isn’t really the failure of conservatives to keep fidelity to factual analysis, because liberals do the same thing – of course, for different subjects.
I remember posting a thread this past year that is evocative of a thread that’s active now: an in-depth analysis of crime data from bars and restaurants after a year’s repeal of the Virginia law forbidding concealed-carry inside a bar or restaurant. My thesis, which was similar to the current thread’s thrust, was that this was evidence that the objections offered up during debate about repealing that law had not yet come to pass.
Much of the response in that thread was to attack, in many creative ways, the conclusions drawn by the data. One poster declared conclusively that since the data did not show a rise in gun crime, it must be the result of a conspiracy on the part of the police and the newspaper to conceal data.
It’s not my intention to re-ignite that debate, any more than it was your intention to re-ignite the global climate debate. I’m sure you agree that there’s at least some room to question how much human activities contribute to climate change, but there’s no real question that the effect exists and it’s not trivial; the failure of conservatives to even admit that basic fact is rightly identified by you as “nonsense.” You rightly decry the specious arguments and highly artificial standards of proof demanded by such conservatives.
But when there is similar strong evidence that leads you (and here I use “you” in its indefinite sense) to a conclusion you don’t want, you are happy to see disbelief flourish, and don’t blink when highly artificial standards of proof are demanded.
So please forgive me if I don’t immediately agree that fidelity to facts is the exclusive arena of the left.
Please forgive me if I would like to see the thread you’ve so characterized, and to see the proportion of sensible to senseless liberal responses. IOW, link, please? There exists the scintilla of a possibility that your memory may be out of kilter with the thread in question.
I don’t think it’s exclusive by any measure. It’s just the liberal versions are pretty much gun control and nuclear power. And they’re hardly universal. I’m for moderate gun control (like nano tagging bullets, shell casings and powder) and I’m actually pro nuclear power. More than half of American liberals are the same.
And how much traction does that have at the federal level? Liberal legislators aren’t trying to outlaw guns. But conservative legislators *are *trying to outlaw abortion.
