7 ms·

Clearly you're delusional for thinking that Iowa does not exist, thus every argument you've ever made and will ever make can be dismissed. Furthermore, because

Clearly you're delusional for thinking that Iowa does not exist, thus every argument you've ever made and will ever make can be dismissed. Furthermore, because you're an Iowa-denialist you probably should lose your job and never hold another job ever again. That's essentially the danger of this type of reasoning. Differences in opinion and disagreements end up essentially as feuds. I think that the Internet is partly to blame here, because the mob simply tries to outdo one another at destroying the arguments, and eventually, the person that disagrees. We can see the extreme examples of this in the case of the gender debate. I wonder whether some people fighting against climate change will become as extreme.

raverbashing 7y ago
It's certainly an interesting discussion. There are levels and levels of believe and promotion. Some Iowa denialist might also reject someone from a job because the candidate claim they're from Iowa and that's obvious a lie. And what if you're making Iowa denial videos and that's causing people to vandalize cars with Iowa plates? But hey, it all started as a joke right? That guy Bob was a jerk and he was from Iowa. Or some company that's competing with your company was from Iowa so, hey, why not mess things up right?
- bsaul 7y ago
  There’s a clear distinction between calling for violent actions and discussing a scientific theory : one is condemned by laws, the other should be fine. Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently. Freedom of speech should absolutely be protected. But censorship is not really the problem. Today, more people have more outlets to speak and express themselves than at any time in history. The problem today is that institutions of trust are being eroded. Every individual cannot be expected to become an expert on every single issue, they need to delegate that research to institutions they trust, and then trust that institutions recommendations. The problem today, is that trust is lacking these institutions (whether that's government, academic, religious, etc.). Without proper authorities of trust, there is a power vacuum that charlatans are eager to take.
    - bsaul 7y ago
      I see it pretty differently : people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons. If you take climate chnage, most « official source of information » today don’t discuss the theory of climate change itself, simply because it’s a complex theory and that it doesn’t want to take the time to do it. Climate sceptics will make hours long video giving « scientific » explanations for why this can’t be true. To me it’s a all in all a good thing. in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion. As a personal exemple, i tried to understand what were deniers saying, and in the process i learned a lot about co2, temperature networks, ice melting process, forest fires cycles, thermal conduction models, and the fact that medias outlets have been calling for an « upcoming climate disaster » for at least a century without interruption. This made me extemely careful not to call anyone a fool too hastly on this particular topic.
      - speedplane 7y ago
        > people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons ... in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion Everyone learns everything through some sort of channel, whether that's your parents, your school, the news, some academic papers, or social media. No one has the time or ability to study everything from first principles. For example, measuring something as basic as the force of gravity is a pretty time-consuming experiment. People learn by ingesting a source, performing a credibility determination of that source, and then using critical reasoning to evaluate those conclusions. When YouTube (or anyone) promotes every crazy wacko with their own crazy idea as equally trustworthy, it eliminates an important component to learning.
        bsaul 7y ago
        The basic scientific method and logic need to be taught indeed, but all the rest relies on experimental validation. The problem with climate change is that experimental validation for the theory of human origin is extremely hard to get. The timescales for validation is on decades, measurements networks are sparse and faulty, all kinds of data twisting and extrapolation need to be done, and in the end we still don’t see anything in our day to day lives. Bush fires have always happened, there’s still polar bears and ice on the arctic, the maldives islands still aren’t underwater, and people still go skiing in winter holidays. But this is also a reason to be careful with climate change proponents : their model are really just model at the moment, and the experimental validation of them is still mostly pending (although there’s a debate on that as well). Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right.
qqqwerty 7y ago
> Furthermore, because you're an Iowa-denialist you probably should lose your job and never hold another job ever again. Cancel Culture! Your attempt to silence my Iowa-denialism proves that the Iowa-exists researchers are a dissent squashing cabal hell bent on silencing any and all critics. More clicks, more views, more money. The BS continues, and we are all worse off for it.

raverbashing 7y ago

It's certainly an interesting discussion. There are levels and levels of believe and promotion. Some Iowa denialist might also reject someone from a job because the candidate claim they're from Iowa and that's obvious a lie. And what if you're making Iowa denial videos and that's causing people to vandalize cars with Iowa plates? But hey, it all started as a joke right? That guy Bob was a jerk and he was from Iowa. Or some company that's competing with your company was from Iowa so, hey, why not mess things up right?

bsaul 7y ago
There’s a clear distinction between calling for violent actions and discussing a scientific theory : one is condemned by laws, the other should be fine. Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently. Freedom of speech should absolutely be protected. But censorship is not really the problem. Today, more people have more outlets to speak and express themselves than at any time in history. The problem today is that institutions of trust are being eroded. Every individual cannot be expected to become an expert on every single issue, they need to delegate that research to institutions they trust, and then trust that institutions recommendations. The problem today, is that trust is lacking these institutions (whether that's government, academic, religious, etc.). Without proper authorities of trust, there is a power vacuum that charlatans are eager to take.
  - bsaul 7y ago
    I see it pretty differently : people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons. If you take climate chnage, most « official source of information » today don’t discuss the theory of climate change itself, simply because it’s a complex theory and that it doesn’t want to take the time to do it. Climate sceptics will make hours long video giving « scientific » explanations for why this can’t be true. To me it’s a all in all a good thing. in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion. As a personal exemple, i tried to understand what were deniers saying, and in the process i learned a lot about co2, temperature networks, ice melting process, forest fires cycles, thermal conduction models, and the fact that medias outlets have been calling for an « upcoming climate disaster » for at least a century without interruption. This made me extemely careful not to call anyone a fool too hastly on this particular topic.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons ... in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion Everyone learns everything through some sort of channel, whether that's your parents, your school, the news, some academic papers, or social media. No one has the time or ability to study everything from first principles. For example, measuring something as basic as the force of gravity is a pretty time-consuming experiment. People learn by ingesting a source, performing a credibility determination of that source, and then using critical reasoning to evaluate those conclusions. When YouTube (or anyone) promotes every crazy wacko with their own crazy idea as equally trustworthy, it eliminates an important component to learning.
      - bsaul 7y ago
        The basic scientific method and logic need to be taught indeed, but all the rest relies on experimental validation. The problem with climate change is that experimental validation for the theory of human origin is extremely hard to get. The timescales for validation is on decades, measurements networks are sparse and faulty, all kinds of data twisting and extrapolation need to be done, and in the end we still don’t see anything in our day to day lives. Bush fires have always happened, there’s still polar bears and ice on the arctic, the maldives islands still aren’t underwater, and people still go skiing in winter holidays. But this is also a reason to be careful with climate change proponents : their model are really just model at the moment, and the experimental validation of them is still mostly pending (although there’s a debate on that as well). Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right.

qqqwerty 7y ago

> Furthermore, because you're an Iowa-denialist you probably should lose your job and never hold another job ever again. Cancel Culture! Your attempt to silence my Iowa-denialism proves that the Iowa-exists researchers are a dissent squashing cabal hell bent on silencing any and all critics. More clicks, more views, more money. The BS continues, and we are all worse off for it.