Mal Adapted writes “Yep, M2’s armor of self-deception is impenetrable. I’m done with him.”

I’ll start the clock 🙂

Wow lasted a day.

[I’m done too -gtl]

I propose that we can now stop charging up and probing his smoky, sparky circuits and move on.

Yep, M2’s armor of self-deception is impenetrable. I’m done with him.

dean writes “Only the weakest of minds on the right hold that book up as a currently accepted guide for social destruction”

Well then, what writer do you consider superior to Alinsky for social destruction? His focus is admittedly rather narrow: community organizing which does not involve social destruction per se, but does require destruction of “little tribes” so you can make a big one.

Inasmuch as each climate blog is a “little tribe”, how do you propose to eliminate all-but-one so that the one can be strong like WUWT?

skeptictmac57, stating the obvious, says “I would submit that people who are immune to (appropriate) ridicule and shame are more often than not sociopaths or just generally misanthropes.”

In other words, cannot belong to the hive but may well be leading it. The hive requires conformity of thought and action and uses (appropriate) ridicule to maintain it. If you do not {do, think, act} as I wish, you are a {misanthrope, sociopath, outcast, denier, ___} (fill in the blank with epithet of the day).

I am glad you put “appropriate” in there; who decides what is appropriate? You will think that you do (most likely) but you take cues from your leader.

“If you do or say something worthy of shame, and don’t even recognize it, or are indifferent to it’s harmful effects, then you are a problem for society, not a solution.”

Yes, exactly, you say it better than I; with due regard for the nuances of meaning. Substitute “hive” or “tribe” for “society” and you have exactly the situation. Not everyone wishes to be in your hive or tribe or society. I might not want you in mine!

While these ideas are not unique they can be difficult for some to assimilate if you believe only one hive, tribe or society does exist or can exist. To be sure, socialism will try to assimilate everyone or cast them out, but so it is with ants and bees and quite a few southern or Idaho militias — if you aren’t for us you are against us. Well how about neither! You do your thing and I do mine. Name it any way you like; it is common and the founding principle of the United States.

After listening to, “[… turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles turtles…]” ad nauseam, I think we can definitively identify our particular local conspiracy buff as a Kook. I doubt that we’ll be able to make a determination here as to his Crook status due to lack of evidence based on his overwhelming turtley fixation.

I propose that we can now stop charging up and probing his smoky, sparky circuits and move on.

DNFTT

=======
“So pile up more turtles! I want ’bout two hundred!”
“Turtles! More turtles!” he bellowed and brayed.
And the turtles ‘way down in the pond were afraid.

~ Yertle the Turtle.

Only the weakest of minds on the right hold that book up as a currently accepted guide for social destruction – it’s no surprise that you do it.

Mal Adapted writes “Yet you have an opinion on how most libertarians feel about this topic.”

Indeed, but it is a definition thing. That is to say, I do not read minds; rather I observe behavior and from that behavior infer the mind. On this blog I see one person semi-libertarian: Me. I see no others. I estimate at least 40 million libertarians (small L) in the United States, possibly much greater depending on how it is defined.

Consequently, it takes no genius to observe that most libertarians do not care to be here on this blog discussing this topic. I haven’t read minds, I read behavior. You can do that, too!

“That would elicit peals of derisive laughter from the Oregonians I spent last weekend with.”

No doubt. Derisive laughter seems to be common on the left.

“Some day self-awareness may arise in your smoky sparky circuits, Michael 2, and if you survive the crushing shame you’ll be a better ‘bot for it. But who would care?”

I believe self awareness sneaks up on a person a little at a time. A problem is that it is recursive; self-awareness must necessarily include being aware of being self-aware and that means a person can never be completely self-aware.

As to crushing shame, that is a thing that works on the E{s,n}FJ types (Myers-Briggs personality type indicator).

NT’s are relatively immune to shame. In my opinion, most leftists are strong on emotion and thus easily manipulated by ridicule and shame — Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” are aimed at the left to organize them and keep them in the fold. That these rules don’t work on libertarians is irrelevant since they were not written to manipulate libertarians.

IMO, most libertarians do not care about this topic. Nor, for that matter, do I claim to be a “Libertarian” or its spokesperson, for there can be no spokesperson for libertarianism.

Yet you have an opinion on how “most libertarians” feel about this topic. Jeezus.

M2:

Note that Oregonlive is way “left” and therefore your tribe ought to approve of it.

That would elicit peals of derisive laughter from the Oregonians I spent last weekend with. Too bad you weren’t there in person to tell them what “left” is.

Some day self-awareness may arise in your smoky sparky circuits, Michael 2, and if you survive the crushing shame you’ll be a better ‘bot for it. But who would care?

I have only now noticed this comment; apologies for not responding sooner.

dean writes “I was simply stating the fact that your philosophy has destroyed any reason for people to take anything you say seriously.”

That would concern me if you spoke for “people”.

“Your ignorant rants about tribes reinforces that fact.

The word “tribal” is in vogue to describe this phenomenon.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/climate_change_and_groupthink.html

Quotes:

“So we band together. Our group’s teachings don’t necessarily have to make sense. By happenstance, accident of birth or parental influence, we adopt our mindset and are welcomed in by like-minded people. Contrary evidence doesn’t register because we’re comfortably, tribally ensconced. This calls for humility: All tribes wear blinders. ”

Note that Oregonlive is way “left” and therefore your tribe ought to approve of it.