I’m replicating his poll here. I have this weird feeling that the results from my readers will be very different. But who knows?
Don’t complain about the wording. It’s his wording.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
The funny part is Instaglenn using a phrase re-popularized by Al Franken.
Jamie (168288) — 9/6/2010 @ 3:20 pmSince I did not get a response if a previous thread on this. You seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of this without addressing the actual issue.
What about Glenn’s point that this rhetoric needs to be taken seriously do you find impossible to take seriously?
The fact is that some environmentalists (and not just lone whackos) DO advocate policies that resemble Nazi policies (forced sterilization, population reduction by any means necessary, etc). Some DO advocate doing so against particular groups. One British nimrod advocated “culling the herd” in regards to Americans and Brits because we have such large carbon footprints.
The definition of Cull is:
“to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control”
Reynolds point is that rhetoric about treating large groups of people as a disease to be eliminated or pestilence to be controlled (like Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats) should be held to the same level of contempt and condemnation no matter the “justification”.
So, again, what do you find unserious about the point?
Weary G (2d39d9) — 9/6/2010 @ 4:11 pmWeary G, your discussion of “the point” entirely missed the point, I do believe.
I voted “present” on the poll because I don’t know if Reynolds was being serious or not. I also don’t fully support Patterico’s position based on Reynolds’ being serious, but I’m not fully against Patterico’s position, either. Just so my own position is clear. 😉
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/6/2010 @ 6:06 pmi think “racist” should have been an option… also, why can’t i vote more than once?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 9/6/2010 @ 6:56 pmWhy can’t you vote more than once? Because Democrats aren’t controlling the polling and besides, you’re no Democrat.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 9/6/2010 @ 7:31 pmI had to Google “kidding on the square” before casting my vote.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 9/6/2010 @ 9:29 pm“I voted “present” on the poll because I don’t know if Reynolds was being serious or not. I also don’t fully support Patterico’s position based on Reynolds’ being serious, but I’m not fully against Patterico’s position, either. Just so my own position is clear.”
It’s not, at all, but thanks for trying.
Weary G (d067d9) — 9/7/2010 @ 1:14 amImpossible to take seriously?
Can you link where this claim was made? It smells a bit like straw.
I think he’s just not sure if it’s serious. He would be sure it wasn’t serious if it was impossible to take seriously.
I don’t want to speak for Patterico. Enough people are misreading his views for me to add views to be misread.
But my view is that we shouldn’t rule general categories of language off limits. If the quality we wish to hold off limits is ‘likely to lead to violence’, we don’t need to get more general.
So the problem for my analysis is whether all comments about threats to the world, disease, culling, etc, satisfy this violence leader attribute. I don’t even care about whether they do or not (probably not always).
(do I need to point out I’m not talking about government action or criminal law? I’m talking about general norms)
I think Glenn was criticizing this general language without rising to the condemnation level, and he also satirized the idea of condemnation.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/7/2010 @ 1:43 am“Can you link where this claim was made? It smells a bit like straw.”
I’m sorry, which claim? That Patterico was refusing to think Reynold’s had a serious point in the column?
You think Patterico was NOT in these now multiple posts taking a position that Reynolds’ column and his point could not be possibly be a serious one? The whole tone AND the language of these posts have been that he HAS to be kidding, because no one could seriously think otherwise. Do I really have to go back over those posts and pick out quotes for you? I assume you have read them as well.
“But my view is that we shouldn’t rule general categories of language off limits.”
Glenn’s post was not about ruling “catagory of language off limits”. It was about treating some ideas as beyond the pale and completely unacceptable in our society, to be treated as disgusting and shameful and those who espouse them as fanatics, contemptible and/or dangerous.
As I asked Patterico in one thread, and have yet to receive an answer, are you saying that ALL ideas are acceptable?
The rhetoric of some environmentalists is one of overt and vitriolic hatred of mankind, of wishing death upon great scores of people so as to “save the planet”. If you think advocacy of genocide is simply another viewpoint to be taken into consideration, then you are at least tacitly accepting the idea of genocide, no?
“If the quality we wish to hold off limits is ‘likely to lead to violence’, we don’t need to get more general.”
Sorry, this is not clear. Could you please clarify what you meant. It appears you are actually making my point for me, but I don’t want to assume.
Weary G (d067d9) — 9/7/2010 @ 2:44 amI took Reynold’s position not that there would be thought police that would be cracking down on people who employ the eliminationalist arguments, but more a kind of, “Sure, I support your right to make a stupid argument, but it’s still a stupid argument.”
For example, the Dixie Chicks were well within their rights to say stupid things while on tour about how they were ashamed of President Bush. But actions have consequences, and country music fans were equally well within their right to no longer buy Dixie Chick CD’s, and their career pretty much tanked as a result.
If you want to immediately marginalize yourself, have fun with that.
Bugz (f3f8fe) — 9/7/2010 @ 11:11 amHuh? What does it matter that there are multiple posts, anyway? How is it so hard to understand what I wrote? Patterico doesn’t know if Glenn is being serious or not. Re-read (or read for the first time) his ‘multiple posts’. Shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes.
What clarification do you need? It’s easy to understand. Yes, I realize this is something many people agree with. That’s because it’s not a very strong claim.
Correct. He didn’t mean that. Can you link somewhere where someone said he did mean that?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/7/2010 @ 11:35 amThe claim I quoted in 8. And then restated for you with a question mark.
This isn’t complicated, Weary.
Instead of turning it around and insisting I prove the opposite, just back up your claim. It should be really easy, since you are obviously basing it on something Patterico said in the last few posts. It’s going to be difficult to discuss this if I have to prove the opposite of everyone’s claims, instead of simply asking them to explain what they are referring to. With a link and a quote, of course.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/7/2010 @ 11:38 amMe: “I took Reynold’s position not that there would be thought police that would be cracking down on people who employ the eliminationalist arguments.”
Dustin: “Correct. He didn’t mean that. Can you link somewhere where someone said he did mean that.”
Seriously? Try this link out, then, and get back to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Now I thought we were talking about Paterico’s take on Reynold’s article.
Paterico: “Don’t take on the arguments. Don’t debate.
Just slap a label on your opponent’s argument (it’s torture, for God’s sake!!!!) with as much self-righteousness as you can muster. Declare the entire topic beyond the bounds of civilized discussion, work in a Nazi reference if you can, and then — this part is important — stomp off in a huff.”
What do YOU think we are talking about?
Bugz (f3f8fe) — 9/7/2010 @ 1:20 pmIf Reynolds is serious, it is foolish. It is always foolish to claim something is so beyond the pale that we can’t argue about it. Particularly when there is a real group of people who passionately hold the view and are willing to act on that view. It is akin to ignoring it, which won’t make it go away.
This type of thinking has not helped the left in its fight against conservatism. For years, the left simply would not address conservative arguments b/c they claimed such arguments were really code for racism, etc., and the MSM helped them by giving as little coverage to conservatives as possible – and where there was coverage, to make sure it was negative.
That did not make conservatives or conservatism go away. Similarly, ignoring the arguments against population growth are not going to win the debate.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 9/7/2010 @ 2:05 pmMonkeytoe, I don’t think Glenn is advocating that we cannot argue about it. From his article, Reynolds said, “…perhaps we need to hold the environmental movement responsible for its frequent use of eliminationist rhetoric.”
To me, that does not say that people can’t put forward arguments supporting eliminationalist theories, but rather, when they do, they be held accountable for those views, and not be given a pass just because they are ‘green’.
For example, progressives around the turn of the last century promoted a lot of eugenic theories that today would be pretty much universally condemned. Well, if eugenics is ‘taboo’, how much more ‘taboo’ should arguments be that suggest human extinction is a good thing?
By all means, let’s allow organizations make eliminationalist arguments all they want. Afterwards, we can all watch them sink as an organization from a self inflicted torpedo strike below the waterline.
Kind of like my previous Dixie Chicks example.
Bugz (f3f8fe) — 9/7/2010 @ 2:33 pmI certainly hope Reynolds was serious. I remember a conversation in the 1980s similar to it. I said, “The 20th century was filled with ideologies and dictators who described some of their subjects as subhuman vermin. Upon gaining power, they acted on their rhetoric. Greens often, and prominent greens more often, refer to human beings as viruses, cancers, diseases, etc. Were the enviros to take power tomorrow, we know what kind of government they’d implement. And what they’d do.” I said it over 20 years ago; it’s still true today.
Note the similarity–probably intended to _Catch-22_:
“They’re shooting at me.”
tehag (9e00c4) — 9/8/2010 @ 1:53 pm“They’re shooting at everyone.”
“And that makes a difference?”