683 karma · joined November 12, 2013
One definition of violence appears to be used when describing ER as 'non-violent'. But another, very different definition of violence appears to be used when declaring that mis-gendering someone is an act of violence.
It seems these days that the word 'violence' has been re-defined such that it no longer requires there to be any abusive physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim. As such, merely using words that may cause an individual some emotional discomfort is considered an act of violence.
I don't agree with that definition, and for me abusive physical contact is the defining characteristic of violence. But if that's the general consensus now then that's what I'll use. We can't have a debate if we're all speaking a different language.
Given that 'violence' no longer requires any physical contact, one could make the argument that some of the activities that ER have engaged in could be considered violent. The many ER road-blocks have very real consequences for all the people who are unable to go about their daily lives without being disrupted. When ER blocks a bus full of people in traffic, it's distinctly possible that those people were on their way to job interviews, doctors appointments, meetings with long-lost relatives, charity fundrasiers or any number of other things. This kind of disruption might easily cause significant emotional distress, I would argue at least on par with the emotional distresss suffered by an individual being mis-gendered. So why should one be considered violence and the other not?
That's not even getting to the topic of Ambulances being caught up in ER road-blocks, which has been documented numerous times. ER even address that issue explicitly in their FAQ (https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/faqs/). They attempt to hand-wave this problem away by saying that ambulances can be re-directed away from the road-blocks. It hardly needs to be said that time is often a critical factor when an ambulance is transporting a patient to hospital. The additional time spent avoiding ER activists could easily be the difference between life and death. Is this not a form of violence?
If 'violence' has been re-defined to the extent that mis-gendering someone is an 'act of violence' (https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/misgendering-trans-peop...), then you could certainly argue that ER have acted violently.
EDIT I see I'm being downvoted. Are we not allowed to have a conversation about re-defining words and being intellectually consistent with the re-defined meaning?
Could you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to know, it could fundamentally change my view on homosexuality.
Do you think it's strange that some of the HK protestors have been waving the flag of their former colonial masters?
That's the very definition of speculation.
"speculation seems quite unfounded"
Purely a matter of personal opinion. There is a clear trend at play in France that is very uncomfortable and disturbing. I think it's lunacy to ignore it. But to each their own.
That such speculation is often met with animosity is strange in itself.
The conspiracy theory, if there is one, is that there is evidence of arson, but it's being suppressed by the authorities. I'm explicitly not taking a stance on that.
https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-fra...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vandalism-at-hundreds-of-...
Yes of course but what I don't understand is why you're choosing to focus exclusively on one narrow aspect of the entire history of human cruelty. Men have been at least as terrible to other men as they have ever been to women. And women are not without the ability to be cruel either. Are you suggesting that it's OK for men to be terrible to other men but women should be a proctected group? That is already largely the case according to my understanding of western Judeo-Christian tradition.
"You _must_ understand that for many women out there, it's still a struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by some men.
Again, why focus on such a narrow aspect of the problem? The vast majority of men also struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by 'some men'.
In the principal of charity I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
How should we take a step back and listen more carefully to this? How are we to interpret that other than as an attack on all men?
I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.
I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack. The outcry is always from other journalists.
let point2 = { point1 with y = value }
EDIT This is inherited from OCaml - https://v1.realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/records.html#functi...
Once again, I am not a 'climate skeptic'. You need to dial down your irrational hatred.
It's right there in the 4th paragraph.
My point is that disinformation campaigns are not solely an endeavour of nefarious actors with an agenda. They are also undertaken by those with noble intentions. Climate alarmists are a good example of that.
Should we give disinformation campaigns a free pass if they're done with good intentions?
This is where you got me badly wrong. I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation.
I think there's a wider discussion to have here about whether disinformation is OK if it's done with noble intentions, and only those spreading disinformation with malicious intent should be censored. Or should we find all disinformation campaigns equally repugnant?
I also showed you that the operators of the weather station explicitly say that the data should not be used to interpret long term trends.
All you have done is launch ad hominem attacks, you have not addressed the issue itself in any of your posts.
Here's what we know:
The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1]
The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2]
Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing.
"Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends."
"After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month."
"correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997."
"This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)."
"The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data."
Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it?
[1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/...
You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
I'd replace 'innocent' with some combination of 'gullible', 'ignorant', or just 'stupid'.
We have a tried & tested strategy for dealing with stupid people - it's called education.
Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population.
Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3]
I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'...
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...