5 ms·

I agree that he went off the deep end with that post. Let there’s be no mistake about that; I live on cap hill in Seattle and his analogy falls flat on its face

I agree that he went off the deep end with that post. Let there’s be no mistake about that; I live on cap hill in Seattle and his analogy falls flat on its face for many reasons. But, I think we should allow ourselves the nuanced perspective of continuing to enjoy his weather posts even if we disagree with his politics. I think that we owe it to ourselves to be able to pick and choose information from a person rather than writing them off entirely. Isn’t that what we do with family members that we have disagreements with but still have to get along with? Are we not all one big human family?

aaomidi 6y ago
If a family member compares blm to nazis then no I basically cut them off.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cmendel 6y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style? Because if that is the case I would highly recommend changing your mind, the Bayesian prior has changed and unfortunately it is permanent.
- cbsks 6y ago
  Just because he gives misleading social commentary, doesn’t mean that his meteorological information is any less accurate.
  - fanatic2pope 6y ago
    How do you know his meteorological information is accurate?
    - cbsks 6y ago
      He is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and his resume [0] looks impressive to me. I realize that this is an appeal to authority, but since I don’t know enough about meteorology to make an informed decision about the specific information that he gives, his qualifications seem to indicate that he is a trustworthy source of meteorological information. I did a quick internet search and looked him up on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia entry [1] mentions the controversies surrounding his non-professional views, but I didn’t find anything about his meteorological views being in question. Please correct me if I missed something! It can be hard to determine if someone is trustworthy on the internet. [0]: https://a.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ecliff/CliffsVitaeLatest09042019.pdf https://a.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ecliff/CliffsVitaeLatest090... [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to characterize political comparisons we find offensive as "misinformation". More generally, standards of intellectual engagement that require you to import political battles into every other topic are destructive and unhelpful.
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  Rephrasing what someone wrote in an uncharitable way is a toxic form of communication that will limit your ability to experience diversity of perspective. It annoys everyone around you and will hurt you in the long run. Instead of slapping malignant narratives on people, try asking explorative questions that invite the OP to clarify or make an ass of themselves.
  - cmendel 6y ago
    I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't follow the aforementioned blogger and don't live on the west coast. That said, your response is interesting, how is my query toxic? To be honest, I don't even think I'm being uncharitable; if a previously reliable information source starting being unreliable then I would expect folks to pay attention to notice that and cease to use it as a source. Since you have an opinion on this, what sort of questions should I have asked the OP? To be explicit; I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
    - DaniloDias 6y ago
      “are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style?” If you look at op’s comment, there is no mention of style. I also have no visibility into misinformation from the blogger. Not sure that OP does either. With respect to his weather writing, he’s been around for quite a while and is perceived as authoritative. He had a radio show dedicated to the weather on NPR. This isn’t some rando with a blog. Questions you should have asked: “how do you feel about this posting where he makes this claim that is clearly misinformation?” You may be right about your above questions- but as an outsider looking at this thread, I don’t see why you believe the things you do and I don’t know why OP would ever agree to that phrasing. You assumed conflict rather than misunderstanding by asking ~“are you advocating reading misinformation because it’s well written?” Is a question that assumes someone knows your context. Trying not to be adversarial here- just underlining where reasonable people would not be super thrilled with the questioning style.
- jackyinger 6y ago
  The writing style is OK, but I’m really there for the weather, and that’s it. Heck I don’t even entirely agree with his weather assessments.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mshenfield 6y ago
Appreciate this perspective! I feel like I'm indirectly supporting his politics by engaging with his weather content. I'm generating ad revenue as a reader. And I'm increasing the size of the platform he can claim, which he can leverage for books, speaking gigs, etc. to promote whatever views he deems important. It's easy for me to find another weather source.
- jackyinger 6y ago
  You have a point there; a public platform is certainly different than an intra-family affair. You’re right about the breadth of viewership being a potential problem. Many folks believe anything they read. This is where I really hope that individual critical thinking will save us. Media outlets shouldn’t be sources where the consumer feels ok with believing everything they hear. I think if that were not the case deplatforming wouldn’t be as appealing of an option as it currently is for handling these situations. Alas, I’m not confident that critical thinking is alive (much less well) when so many people apparently think along party lines. Probably deplatforming Cliff was the right thing to do in the big picture.
- oasisbob 6y ago
  I'm actively looking for better sources. Honestly, one of my biggest problems with Cliff isn't even a new one ... his blog is almost wholly one-way. He spent all this time to build a platform, but doesn't seem to care about his community at all. Doesn't respond to smart comments, nor dumb ones. Not on busy popular posts, nor quiet ones. Doesn't answer questions at all really.
DaniloDias 6y ago
Could you help me understand the reasons? When you are living history, you don’t know that ww2 is around the corner. I think the observations of the similarities between the brown shirts and violent protesters is correct. I don’t know if a better historical parallel. Look what happened to Aaron Danielson. Brown shirts engaged in antagonism and murder towards people they perceived as evil in the same way these Antifa types do. They terrorized businesses the same way these BLM types have been doing. I do not understand the perspective of people who don’t have a regexp that fires on this- I want to be wrong, but I can’t stop seeing problems. I don't understand how these parallels can be so easily dismissed. Is it because you don’t expect it to end in a Holocaust?
- Can_Not 6y ago
  Yes, it does remind us of how the brownshirts spread false rumors and hysteria about people who opposed the nazis in the years before the holocaust.
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    ??
- pravus 6y ago
  At least from my perspective this has been an ongoing problem for many years now and I would refer you to Godwin's law. There is this weird sort of mystique about Hitler and the Nazi Party that keep people entranced that it was "pure evil" rather than a decade-plus political process taking place in a very unique time of history with many other actors in play. You can't use any sort of "slippery slope" argument because of course those don't exist. The fact that you can trace elements of both WW-I and WW-II to at least the mid-1800s in terms of holistic world upheaval doesn't even get mentioned. There doesn't seem to be many students of history these days. Instead what we get is almost fantasy horror and when you try to make serious political arguments they are just dismissed. I mean, it can't happen here because unicorns don't exist either. I also find it troubling that many people have no appreciation for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao in light of the millions lives that were destroyed after WW-II. Some very horrific acts occurred in the 20th century and debating rather than dismissing these issues seems like not only a good idea, but probably essential if peace and humanity are truly desired.

aaomidi 6y ago

If a family member compares blm to nazis then no I basically cut them off.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cmendel 6y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style? Because if that is the case I would highly recommend changing your mind, the Bayesian prior has changed and unfortunately it is permanent.

cbsks 6y ago
Just because he gives misleading social commentary, doesn’t mean that his meteorological information is any less accurate.
- fanatic2pope 6y ago
  How do you know his meteorological information is accurate?
  - cbsks 6y ago
    He is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and his resume [0] looks impressive to me. I realize that this is an appeal to authority, but since I don’t know enough about meteorology to make an informed decision about the specific information that he gives, his qualifications seem to indicate that he is a trustworthy source of meteorological information. I did a quick internet search and looked him up on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia entry [1] mentions the controversies surrounding his non-professional views, but I didn’t find anything about his meteorological views being in question. Please correct me if I missed something! It can be hard to determine if someone is trustworthy on the internet. [0]: https://a.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ecliff/CliffsVitaeLatest09042019.pdf https://a.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ecliff/CliffsVitaeLatest090... [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think it's reasonable to characterize political comparisons we find offensive as "misinformation". More generally, standards of intellectual engagement that require you to import political battles into every other topic are destructive and unhelpful.
DaniloDias 6y ago
Rephrasing what someone wrote in an uncharitable way is a toxic form of communication that will limit your ability to experience diversity of perspective. It annoys everyone around you and will hurt you in the long run. Instead of slapping malignant narratives on people, try asking explorative questions that invite the OP to clarify or make an ass of themselves.
- cmendel 6y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't follow the aforementioned blogger and don't live on the west coast. That said, your response is interesting, how is my query toxic? To be honest, I don't even think I'm being uncharitable; if a previously reliable information source starting being unreliable then I would expect folks to pay attention to notice that and cease to use it as a source. Since you have an opinion on this, what sort of questions should I have asked the OP? To be explicit; I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    “are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style?” If you look at op’s comment, there is no mention of style. I also have no visibility into misinformation from the blogger. Not sure that OP does either. With respect to his weather writing, he’s been around for quite a while and is perceived as authoritative. He had a radio show dedicated to the weather on NPR. This isn’t some rando with a blog. Questions you should have asked: “how do you feel about this posting where he makes this claim that is clearly misinformation?” You may be right about your above questions- but as an outsider looking at this thread, I don’t see why you believe the things you do and I don’t know why OP would ever agree to that phrasing. You assumed conflict rather than misunderstanding by asking ~“are you advocating reading misinformation because it’s well written?” Is a question that assumes someone knows your context. Trying not to be adversarial here- just underlining where reasonable people would not be super thrilled with the questioning style.
jackyinger 6y ago
The writing style is OK, but I’m really there for the weather, and that’s it. Heck I don’t even entirely agree with his weather assessments.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mshenfield 6y ago

Appreciate this perspective! I feel like I'm indirectly supporting his politics by engaging with his weather content. I'm generating ad revenue as a reader. And I'm increasing the size of the platform he can claim, which he can leverage for books, speaking gigs, etc. to promote whatever views he deems important. It's easy for me to find another weather source.

jackyinger 6y ago
You have a point there; a public platform is certainly different than an intra-family affair. You’re right about the breadth of viewership being a potential problem. Many folks believe anything they read. This is where I really hope that individual critical thinking will save us. Media outlets shouldn’t be sources where the consumer feels ok with believing everything they hear. I think if that were not the case deplatforming wouldn’t be as appealing of an option as it currently is for handling these situations. Alas, I’m not confident that critical thinking is alive (much less well) when so many people apparently think along party lines. Probably deplatforming Cliff was the right thing to do in the big picture.
oasisbob 6y ago
I'm actively looking for better sources. Honestly, one of my biggest problems with Cliff isn't even a new one ... his blog is almost wholly one-way. He spent all this time to build a platform, but doesn't seem to care about his community at all. Doesn't respond to smart comments, nor dumb ones. Not on busy popular posts, nor quiet ones. Doesn't answer questions at all really.

DaniloDias 6y ago

Could you help me understand the reasons? When you are living history, you don’t know that ww2 is around the corner. I think the observations of the similarities between the brown shirts and violent protesters is correct. I don’t know if a better historical parallel. Look what happened to Aaron Danielson. Brown shirts engaged in antagonism and murder towards people they perceived as evil in the same way these Antifa types do. They terrorized businesses the same way these BLM types have been doing. I do not understand the perspective of people who don’t have a regexp that fires on this- I want to be wrong, but I can’t stop seeing problems. I don't understand how these parallels can be so easily dismissed. Is it because you don’t expect it to end in a Holocaust?

Can_Not 6y ago
Yes, it does remind us of how the brownshirts spread false rumors and hysteria about people who opposed the nazis in the years before the holocaust.
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  ??
pravus 6y ago
At least from my perspective this has been an ongoing problem for many years now and I would refer you to Godwin's law. There is this weird sort of mystique about Hitler and the Nazi Party that keep people entranced that it was "pure evil" rather than a decade-plus political process taking place in a very unique time of history with many other actors in play. You can't use any sort of "slippery slope" argument because of course those don't exist. The fact that you can trace elements of both WW-I and WW-II to at least the mid-1800s in terms of holistic world upheaval doesn't even get mentioned. There doesn't seem to be many students of history these days. Instead what we get is almost fantasy horror and when you try to make serious political arguments they are just dismissed. I mean, it can't happen here because unicorns don't exist either. I also find it troubling that many people have no appreciation for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao in light of the millions lives that were destroyed after WW-II. Some very horrific acts occurred in the 20th century and debating rather than dismissing these issues seems like not only a good idea, but probably essential if peace and humanity are truly desired.