Slashdot Mirror

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

Come on, tell us exactly how these terrorists destroyed America 40 years ago by telling Americans they were being spied on by America.

They weren't terrorists engaged in violence, and they didn't destroy America. The crimes they committed were more or less breaking and entering, and theft of documents.

The actual terrorists engaged in a campaign of violence at the time were the Weather Underground. They had a goal of violently overthrowing the US government and economic system to replace it with revolutionary communism. If you read the very bottom section of the second link, the transcript, you can see how far they were prepared to go to accomplish it. I've heard numbers like that before, and you should too.

Shall we commence with the ironic moderation?

And thus you descend from transparency into ludicrousity.

You're attempting to twist Snowden into the role of Al-Qaeda, denying him the position alongside those long-ago whistleblowers as a defender of freedom.

Yes, the Weathermen and the Panthers and others of their ilk were a matter of national concern and rightfully targets of FBI investigation. But the FBI was more than just the nation's domestic investigative body, it was also J. Edgar Hoover's personal fiefdom. He didn't simply lead it, he steered it to his own private benefit and the benefit of those leaders whom he wished to favor. That included absurd attempts to link public figures that he disapproved of to enemies of the State for the purposes of character assasination. Not just terrorists, no. Even the Godless Evil Communists! He also worked as a chilling effect against many organizations that were otherwise inclined to be peaceful, stirring up division and mistrust to the point where you pretty much had to be a committed radical to even consider getting invoved.

Then, as now, what was meant to serve the public was being distorted to meet other agendas. And then, as now, the lid needed to be ripped off and the roaches exposed to the light of day.

And somehow, we survived it.

It'a exactly the same thing as providing fluoride-free toothpaste so that Oregonians need not corrupt their vital body fluids with godless Communism.

That punk on 9/11 could not have done as much damage to America as she's done to herself in the 12 years since 9/11.

Sure but at least we didn't let those godless turrorists win! Merica, fuck yeah!

Think about it...forcing children to pledge allegiance to a government...

Actually, first and foremost, we force them to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. A form of political idolatry that even our British counterparts never demanded. In fact, if some in Congress ever got their way, any desecration of this Holy symbol would earn the same kind of response you'd get if you urinated on a Quran in Afghanistan.

Then, if the original pledge wasn't enough, the McCarthy-era politicians added that verbal speed-bump "Under God" to the litany in defiance of the Godless Commies of the Soviet Union - and never mind also of the concept that the USA would not support a State Religion.

Imagine? I'm all but certain of it. This was the same era when congress voted to add 'under god' to the pledge of allegence and change the national motto to 'in god we trust.' Both of which very much were ways to raise the national middle finger at the godless soviets.

It's just a Shane that with all that scientific advancement they couldn't get away from a fairy story like Genesis. They tried to bring the world together with that reading but ended up demonstrating how it is divided by superstition and dogma.

I imagine it was a bit of a poke at the godless soviets as well. I'm really glad they didn't do it when landing on the moon as well.

- This is a power struggle between an Imam who lives in a mansion in Pennsylvania vs. his servant.

- In the past week, 5 ministers resigned. That is almost %20 of the cabinet

- In the past two days, almost all the police chiefs in the country were suspended

- When district attorneys ordered police to arrest some key businessmen, police refused. Eventhough this is a constitutional offense and has a penalty of jailtime, no one is on trial

- A reshuffle is expected tonight or tomorrow. Definitely before weekend. The servant wants to pick up the pieces but the Imam is bent on destroying them

- These fractions were once united through their belief in Allah and were hell-bent on destroying the old regime which they claim was built by American servants and godless infidels

- No Muslim country in the area would interfere if these two fractions are to murder each other this very moment. Just like Assad is murdering his country and destroying history that dates before religion and no one does anything useful

List goes on and on and on. You wouldn't care and I can't blame you. Just know that these are not much different from any other crazy religious people in the world. Just like anywhere else in the world, there are some people in this country who are harming its future. The mistake is that they are ruling now. This too shall pass.

That's FREEDOM fries, you godless commie!

But spying for a political race? There aren't really any defenses you can latch onto to rationalize it. Maybe supporting a pro-NSA candidate might have some traction since that could tie back to the other narratives, but even then, the awareness that you're crossing the Rubicon would be overwhelming.

Visit a Democratic-leaning forum, like DailyKos. Visit a Republican-leaning forum, like FreeRepublic.

On DailyKos, the Republicans aren't merely the oppostion, they're fascists who must be eliminated to protect the republic from the running pig-dogs of Capitalism run amok. On FreeRepublic, the Democrats aren't merely the opposition, they're communists who must be eliminated to protect the republic from Godless Atheist hordes.

The common thread is that partisan politics in the United States has become increasingly radicalized over the past decade. Blame it on 9/11. Blame it on epistemic bubbles brought on by search engines that return results that they think you'll click on because you already agree with them. Blame it on whatever -- the common thread is that the opposing party must be defeated, at all costs, in order to protect America. That's the only rationalization that's needed.

And if you take out the names of the parties, that's the rationalization for the implementation of the surveillance state in the first place: that there exists an existential threat to America, and it must be located and rooted out if the republic is to survive.

There is a large segment of the population for whom abusing surveillance powers for political purposes isn't like crossing the Rubicon, it's more like a child skipping through a puddle after a rainstorm. They're everywhere from our glitzy dot-com offices to the local Wal*Mart, and I have no doubt that such people are in our intelligence agencies too. The civil service bureaucracy is founded on the assumption that its workers are nonpartisan; hyperpartisanship is an insider threat for which our agencies are organizationally incapable of adapting.

OK, let's see. We had to fight a war that killed over half a million people to destroy slavery in a country of thirty million. That godless commie killed maybe a few hundred people in destroying apartheid in a country of fifty million. Wonder if a lesson lurks therein...

Yes, that lesson being that the power of rationalization is seemingly infinite.

OK, let's see. We had to fight a war that killed over half a million people to destroy slavery in a country of thirty million. That godless commie killed maybe a few hundred people in destroying apartheid in a country of fifty million. Wonder if a lesson lurks therein...

Really? Oh no! We'll all be turned into godless communists who are in league with the Bolshevik Martian invaders. Soon we will force everyone to wear their underpants on their heads!

The GOP by and large isnt bothered if your costs get lower (though, in reality, it is not actually possible for the majority's costs to get lower when we are now covering higher risk people); the concern is that we are going down a path of surrendering every area of life to government control. The idea that the government has the right to tell you to buy X product in order to live in this country is problematic; and its problematic that the government is OK with saying "it doesnt matter what bad choices you make in life, we (that is America at large) has your back".

Theres a term called "enablement" when dealing with someone who has an addiction / other problem; it refers to feeding their bad choices by taking away all consequences. What do you suppose happens when everyone is paying into insurance to cover the terrible choices others make? Or, I suppose, we could fix that by legislating exactly how people can live everyday life, but Im not seeing that as much better.

Because everyone knows that if someone gets sick, it's always caused by their own bad choices (like being born) and should be either denied care, or financially punished into bankruptcy.

And I agree totally. High risk people shouldn't be covered at all if they're not rich. Don't "enable" them - they're all just evil, godless liberals sponging off the hard-working REAL Americans. Fuck 'em.

A godless lie

Consider:
In the early years we had to defend ourselves against the Godless heathen savages who wanted to attack us for no reason
Then southerners had to defend themselves against the attacks of newly freed black people who would attack them for no reason.
Then middle class folks had to defend themselves against all the impoverished urban minorities who wanted to attack for no good reason.
Now we all have to defend ourselves against all the foreigners who want to attack us for no good reason.
I know, they all just hate us for our freedoms.

Simmer down? Simmer down?

How dare you tell me that I am over-reacting! Who gave you the right to judge whether my honestly-held opinions are or are not relevant to the situation?

By God, it's people like you who oppress us and censor us by saying that, after we denounce you for Godless Communist heathens, mindless socialist prats, and other names that are considered unsavory by the obviously-biased mainstream media, perhaps we should modify our language.

</sarcasm>

(Did I forget that <sarcasm> tag again? Oh, that's embarrassing...)

Seriously, though... your point is well taken. Slashdot hasn't always been so great with article summaries - but said summaries are also usually written by the submitter, so sometimes one can find an axe being ground.

As for overwrought expressions... the Internet is the voice of the world, and there are those who seem to think that the only way to be heard distinctly is to scream everything.

lets not pretend on which side the intolerant religious extremism resides.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, IN GOD WE TRUST

Clue: Using the word "God" in a motto or slogan is not religious extremism.

Clue. 'In God We Trust' only got stuck on money during the mid-50's, when we were fighting the Cold War and were totally opposed to 'them godless commie bastards'. Before that, the national motto was 'E Pluribus Unum', Latin for 'From Many, One'.

Irrelevant. Old or new, its still just a motto / slogan.

Timeline Clue: References to "God" by the U.S. government (if we include its colonial precursor) are as old as the Declaration of Independence.

lets not pretend on which side the intolerant religious extremism resides.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, IN GOD WE TRUST

Clue: Using the word "God" in a motto or slogan is not religious extremism.

Clue. 'In God We Trust' only got stuck on money during the mid-50's, when we were fighting the Cold War and were totally opposed to 'them godless commie bastards'. Before that, the national motto was 'E Pluribus Unum', Latin for 'From Many, One'.

Or the robot can do what the rest of us when told we're "dark sided" or godless. Pat the religious person on the head and say "really? How awful!"