5 ms·

So about 50% of US citizens you would treat like holocaust deniers/flat-earthers? http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-clim

by sien 10y ago

So about 50% of US citizens you would treat like holocaust deniers/flat-earthers? http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climat...

dleslie 10y ago
Yes, absolutely.
- brokenmasonjars 10y ago
  This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    I'm not American; I have been embittered by the influence the USA has on our world and the relative lack of agency in influencing American actions that the rest of the world exhibits. I'm ready for another two terms; from the outside looking in I expected continuance of the bombs dropping, the climate talks to continue to end in toothless agreements, the off-shoring of abysmal labour conditions to continue unabated, and so forth, regardless of whether your executive wore red or blue. Please give me reason for hope, because we need it.
    - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
      I too would suspect Bernie Sanders would have had some military events. I'm not saying either side is perfect. I am saying that shouting down at one group is not going to solve the problem. Especially if half the nation doesn't believe in climate change and typically more apt to vote than their liberal counterparts.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms. The problem isn't trying to socialize them. Their beliefs are a matter of faith and as such is not something they are willing to seriously question without help. You simply cannot "socialize" this problem away. The reality is, these are people who genuinely caught up in a web of charismatic con artists and unfortunately we reality is we will not be more effective than professionals. I have friends who I interact with daily who support Trump and socializing with them it has become clear they take dogma over facts. And I don't mean things that are heavily politicized like Climate Change. I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio. This isn't something you can fix with socialization. This is a willing blindness of cult followers who have been decieved. https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientologist/ https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientol... > Deprogramming a current member of Scientology would depend upon the concern and support of family and friends. > a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power; > a process [Lifton calls] coercive persuasion or thought reform; > economic exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. 1) They felt vulnerable and they were losing ground in what they believe is a religious war on "their" belief system by Cultural Marxists / PC / Liberal culture. They feel that old institutions that they value have been weakened or destroyed outright. (i.e. Marriage) They rely on charismatic leaders to focus their worship. (i.e. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Milo) 2) The "cult" has created a filter bubble in which cult members discuss things among themselves and assume all outside influences are heretics acting in bad faith to lure them away from the light. (i.e. They attack credentialed experts while holding up small minority opinions that are not the views of almost all experts in that field of study) People who act against this are ostracized by the party, called cucks, RINOs, etc. (i.e. Right wing talk radio, Alex Jones, Blogspam, Fox News Opinion Shows) 3) The "cult" acts against the economic best interests of the majority of its members and instead focus on servicing the needs of its ruling coterie of donors. (i.e. It focuses on servicing the needs of the wealthy donors and their beliefs.)
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    At some point, they need to be cut out of the discussion which is why I support taking private initiatives to stave off the worse of AGW without their support. So if it means they get the White House, they can have it. I'd rather have a sustainable ecosystem and set of permanent and private institutions that supplant theirs to maintain that ecosystem. When a significant portion of private power isn't bending a knee to the old order that folks like Stephen Bannon (and to some extent Hillary Clinton) continue to worship then maybe we'll become a more mature civilization in which large scale issues like AGW aren't held hostage by the posturings of politicians.
peteretep 10y ago
Yes. I consider the view both offensive and dangerous. Further, unless you're a climate-change scientist, holding anything other than the 97% consensus view among climate-change scientists is willful ignorance, usually along partisan lines.

by sien 10y ago

dleslie 10y ago

Yes, absolutely.

brokenmasonjars 10y ago
This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
- dleslie 10y ago
  I'm not American; I have been embittered by the influence the USA has on our world and the relative lack of agency in influencing American actions that the rest of the world exhibits. I'm ready for another two terms; from the outside looking in I expected continuance of the bombs dropping, the climate talks to continue to end in toothless agreements, the off-shoring of abysmal labour conditions to continue unabated, and so forth, regardless of whether your executive wore red or blue. Please give me reason for hope, because we need it.
  - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
    I too would suspect Bernie Sanders would have had some military events. I'm not saying either side is perfect. I am saying that shouting down at one group is not going to solve the problem. Especially if half the nation doesn't believe in climate change and typically more apt to vote than their liberal counterparts.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms. The problem isn't trying to socialize them. Their beliefs are a matter of faith and as such is not something they are willing to seriously question without help. You simply cannot "socialize" this problem away. The reality is, these are people who genuinely caught up in a web of charismatic con artists and unfortunately we reality is we will not be more effective than professionals. I have friends who I interact with daily who support Trump and socializing with them it has become clear they take dogma over facts. And I don't mean things that are heavily politicized like Climate Change. I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio. This isn't something you can fix with socialization. This is a willing blindness of cult followers who have been decieved. https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientologist/ https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientol... > Deprogramming a current member of Scientology would depend upon the concern and support of family and friends. > a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power; > a process [Lifton calls] coercive persuasion or thought reform; > economic exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. 1) They felt vulnerable and they were losing ground in what they believe is a religious war on "their" belief system by Cultural Marxists / PC / Liberal culture. They feel that old institutions that they value have been weakened or destroyed outright. (i.e. Marriage) They rely on charismatic leaders to focus their worship. (i.e. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Milo) 2) The "cult" has created a filter bubble in which cult members discuss things among themselves and assume all outside influences are heretics acting in bad faith to lure them away from the light. (i.e. They attack credentialed experts while holding up small minority opinions that are not the views of almost all experts in that field of study) People who act against this are ostracized by the party, called cucks, RINOs, etc. (i.e. Right wing talk radio, Alex Jones, Blogspam, Fox News Opinion Shows) 3) The "cult" acts against the economic best interests of the majority of its members and instead focus on servicing the needs of its ruling coterie of donors. (i.e. It focuses on servicing the needs of the wealthy donors and their beliefs.)
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  At some point, they need to be cut out of the discussion which is why I support taking private initiatives to stave off the worse of AGW without their support. So if it means they get the White House, they can have it. I'd rather have a sustainable ecosystem and set of permanent and private institutions that supplant theirs to maintain that ecosystem. When a significant portion of private power isn't bending a knee to the old order that folks like Stephen Bannon (and to some extent Hillary Clinton) continue to worship then maybe we'll become a more mature civilization in which large scale issues like AGW aren't held hostage by the posturings of politicians.

peteretep 10y ago

Yes. I consider the view both offensive and dangerous. Further, unless you're a climate-change scientist, holding anything other than the 97% consensus view among climate-change scientists is willful ignorance, usually along partisan lines.