| poeTV | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook

Help keep poeTV running


And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 19
HarrietTubmanPI - 2015-08-29

Five for evil. Also Santorum's talking point is complete BS. If a scientist doesn't agree with the IPCC's claim by 1% it's part of his manufactured doubt. When in reality, nearly all of those scientists he mentions are in agreement that global warming is manmade and is a serious problem.


Cena_mark - 2015-08-29

Conservatives honestly don't think they're wrong. They just go from their own set of fake facts. I used to say the exact same things when I was a climate change denying conservative. Remember, they think we're the deluded ones.


Old_Zircon - 2015-08-29

And on some issues we are, just not this one.

On a lot of issues, both sides are the deluded ones.


Bootymarch - 2015-08-29

I know it's asked all the time, but when did science become a political issue? My fucking high school chemistry teacher was a wingnut climate change denier, not someone that was skeptical, a denier! It was flat out "kids, I'll tell you now, there's no global warming. It's just all the hot air from democrats. You know they had a summit on global warming, and they canceled it! Why? Cause it was too cold! Etc"

One time he asked me, "If you're for redistribution of wealth, let me ask you this, would you let some students have points off your GPA?" I didn't have any ammunition immediately other than somethings not right about that, so being a high schooler I went home and thought about it. It's a bullshit analogy for countless reasons, but I can't help but wonder where would my skepticism of it be if I was raised a neo-con, or if he was a real scientist and posing accurate global climate data. Like my whole incentive to prove him wrong in that case was informed based on my prejudice...

tldr I could have been rick santorum.


Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2015-08-29

Yo Cena, I reckon I missed the ballad of Cena here on poetv but I'm really curious. How did you manage to go from being like that to not being like that? It seems like rare occurrence. So called conservatives* tend to just dig in and become even more stoic when presented with arguments against their treasured beliefs.
Im curious cus maybe the process you went through could be applied to others.

*Really people with some of the most extreme notions ever, not really very conservative according to the meaning of the word.


baleen - 2015-08-29

Science has always been swayed by majority. But those majorities among scientists are hard won. That's part of the process.
There's a difference between believing that minority opinions might have more to say than they are given credit for in the scientific community and believing that a hard won scientific majority is a vast conspiracy.
This is what contemporary conservatives Americans ( I say Americans because climate science is not so politically divisive in most places) actually believe.

Still, a lot of Democrats are creationists. A lot of lefties believe Monsanto controls everything (they don't) and that USDA organic produce labeling actually means something (it really doesn't). And of course, some liberals, a small minority, are vaxxers. The main difference is that climate change threatens to destroy the world, whereas the aforementioned pseudo-scientific beliefs are just bouts of food and medical tribalism.


Cena_mark - 2015-08-30

That's a good question MPCE. Its funny, because most people become more right wing when they join the military. I was about the same when I got out of basic training. I went right back here and attempted to convince the good people of the freedom and prosperity of supply side economics. Getting slammed here constantly started to wear down my defenses.
I learned a new word here, which really opened up my mind "cognitive dissonance". It really is a fantastic word. Just to think of the defenses we put up when our views our challenged. When I look out at pundits and politicians you see how cognitive dissonance makes it impossible for facts to get through.
Another big hit for my views came when somebody here just flat out said libertarianism isn't pragmatic. It really made me think I had only really held my views out of principal, and had never thought about how they'd work in the real world. Turns out they wouldn't. Now I'm the frustrated liberal trying to get past conservative people's rigid principles. I was discussing the need to raise minimum wage. At some point I said,"Look just say I'm right, about it being good for the economy, would you still oppose it?" And my coworker still would. He just felt it was wrong to pay burger flippers more than they get now.
Speaking of getting to work, I have to go. I'll post part II later today.


Meerkat - 2015-08-30

It's really just basic mean-spiritedness. There is no value to it. It's stupid. Everybody loses.


Two Jar Slave - 2015-08-30

I anxiously await Cena's continued tale of how Poet V made him into a pinko treehugger. But then, I have very little going on today.

Will this become a weekly feature, replete with cliffhangers and tasteless sex scenes? Please?


Cena_mark - 2015-08-30

The final straw for me and the GOP came with the 2012 Republican Primary. I was at that point growing more liberal. The stuff they said started to sound repugnant. Rick Santorum was the worst of them all, and when he because the #2 guy at the very end I was both disgusted and scared with how close this maniac got.
At that point I was in a place I never thought I would be, the Obama wagon.
I'm just one guy. I changed through hanging out in a liberal minded internet community. Most conservatives won't do that, most people enjoy the echo chamber. They'll hear what they want to hear so no matter the facts say climate change is a hoax, more guns = less crime, and supply side economics is fiscally responsible and brings prosperity to all.


Aelric - 2015-08-30

As a guy that got hot under the collar about the way you used to be, I have to say that I'm happy it turned out for the better for you Cena. I'm sure that some of your older pals think someone poisoned your mind but regardless of liberal or conservative beliefs, reason and consideration is never a bad thing. There is tons I dislike on the liberal side of things as well, but in the end, it's the side that smells less like shit at the end of the day, at least on social issues.

Sadly, I've come to agree with what Marc Maron says: that both sides are fronts for the same money laundering operation. But having had to deal with multiple governments the past decade, I can't say I've found any better elsewhere, though some better in aspects and worse in others.


Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2015-08-30

Thanks for sharing Cena. I find it interesting that poetv was a contributing factor. poetv is a very oldskool website, is quite obscure and has a relatively small niche following. The upshot of that is that there is great variation among its users, also as the community is small and as we'll see the same people again we tend to have civil conversation. That was one of amazing things about the early web; People from wildly different backgrounds and viewpoints having real meaningful exchanges.

The modern web seems to be sorely lacking this. Where websites have many millions of users people will never encounter the same person again so they flame and troll and spout their garbage by rote and really there is no dialogue happening at all. Also lets say in the case of reddit for example each subreddit is so specialised (It can be, and still be of a viable size cus the overall userbase is so large), that people in it will only encounter people with exactly the same set of values and their discussions will only deepen their extreme viewpoints.


Sanest Man Alive - 2015-08-29

Huh, here I was expecting them to just unscientifically out-horrible each other, given Maher's prior stance on vaccinations. Dunno if it's proper to thank someone just for not being shitty, but it's a nice surprise.

Anyway, stars for the santorum Santorum says. I wonder if he and Biden would agree to a barefisted fight to the death over who is truly the voice of Pennsylvania.


Rodents of Unusual Size - 2015-08-29

Rick Santorum is gayer than Clay Aiken in a dick shaped lollipop store.


Binro the Heretic - 2015-08-30

It's odd how much Republicans care about preserving the precious jobs of coal miners and everyone else related to the fossil fuel industry. They sure as Hell didn't care when factory workers started losing their jobs to more efficient technologies and cheap overseas labor.


zerobackup - 2015-08-30

It's all bullshit lip service, they support the position their billionaire donors support: protect fossil fuels, fuck the workers that produce the products.


EvilHomer - 2015-08-30

I don't get it, why are these two people so angry at each other?

Mr Santorum's source regarding the 57%/95% study seems to check out {1} although why this statement should be controversial, I haven't the foggiest! It's clear from the numbers within that study that the majority of scientists believe in AGW, and while yes indeed, there is a fair amount of debate as to the degree to which human-generated greenhouses gasses are contributing to climate change, most scientists seem pretty confident that *at least* 50% of the currently observed changes can be attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses! Hardly any deny its role completely.

As for Mr Maher's comments re: the 97% consensus, the source for that statistic does indeed seem problematic {2}, given that Dr. Cook needed to discard roughly 67% of all respondents before he could arrive at this number. Nevertheless, whether the percentage of scientists who believe strongly in AGW is 97% or slightly lower (95%? 90%?), it's clear that a consensus is still there! One over-cooked study does not the whole theory overturn!

The argument Mr Maher raises re: the Pope is a little bit more problematic for Mr Santorum, given that Mr Santorum is a Catholic himself, but it's still silly. Papal infallibility does not, in fact, apply to everything the Pope says, and would never apply to statements the Pope makes regarding scientific truths: infallible statements must "concern a doctrine of faith or morals" {3}. Not to mention the fact that Santorum could easily deflect this argument by professing a belief in sedevacantism, an increasingly popular position within the Catholic church.



Honestly, the way these two are carrying on, they sound like two old men on a trashy American political-entertainment program.



{1} http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-cli mate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
{2} http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
{3} http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Theological_Definition


Sanest Man Alive - 2015-08-30

I dunno why Maher resorts to such a weak appeal to authority there, just makes him sound like a lazy scrub. (oh wait, maybe I answered myself) If he'd stuck to his guns about the job growth instead, even thrown some more numbers about how much cheaper the technology's become, he could've kept the advantage. The voting masses of the conservative movement can still be approached pragmatically, at least on some issues. But no, it's just "WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO FRANKY?"


Sexy Duck Cop - 2015-08-30

God almighty, it takes a lot of horrible to make me agree with Bill Mahrer.


Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement