Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Robust Debate as fucking always
Two classic examples.
= = = = =
1. From crimate "scientist" Kate Marvel:
As part of this mission, the EPA has considered a plan to put climate science up for public debate. This “Red Team, Blue Team” exercise would have pitted scientists against people who do not like them in order to cast doubt on the consensus that human activities are warming the planet. I am completely on board with this, as long as the Blue Team also gets private jets and enormous security details. We will, however, take a pass on the used Trump Hotel mattresses. I’m kidding, of course. In fact, as a general rule, I refuse to debate basic science in public. There are two reasons for this: first, I’m a terrible debater and would almost certainly lose. The skills necessary to be a good scientist (coding, caring about things like “moist static energy”, drinking massive amounts of coffee) aren’t necessarily the same skills that will convince an audience in a debate format.I won't belabor the obvious. No need to beat a putrid stinking genocidally toxic dead horse. (I deeply apologize to actual dead horses, and to the maggots, rats, bacteria, fungi, and ants that inhabit them, for this invidious comparison.) There's a more subtle and more important point in Marvel's fake "humble" admission that she's a terrible debater. When you have reality on your side, and you understand reality in your mind and muscles, you don't NEED to be a good debater. Good teachers and good salesmen have always known this. When your viewpoint agrees with reality, you don't even need to TALK. You can just let the listeners experiment with reality or observe the facts directly. When your product is truly better than the competition, you don't even need to SELL. You can just let the customer try the product. If you have to TALK or SELL, you are admitting that your theory or product is inferior. = = = = = 2. From a Deutsche Welle feature on Kraut disagreements over migration:
In the audience is Juliana Meyer. She coordinates scores of volunteers from Cottbus who help migrants fit in. Meyer scoffs at the city's moratorium on refugees, saying that it has prevented "only around 30" people from moving there. "The biggest problem is that people don't talk to one another enough and don't debate things properly with objective arguments and issues we all care about," Meyer tells DW. But when asked if she'd sit down with the AfD, she says no. For her the party, whose leaders flirt with taboo racist language, is too closely associated with "misanthropic and xenophobic" positions to be a legitimate discussion partner.People don't debate things properly. Will you debate things properly? OF COURSE NOT. The other side is ILLEGITIMATE. In fairness, DW is pointing out the absurdity, not contributing to it. In recent months DW is genuinely aiming toward objectivity. Their articles on Orban vs Soros are admirably objective. Marvel and Meyer give us perfect examples of the modern Robust Debate, an auction where competing Inquisitors bid up the violence against Heretics.
Labels: Carbon Cult, Carver, Experiential education
¶ 12:08 AM
