Coining a New Term: The Loonisphere : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« New Roger Clyne Videos | Main | Michigan has Top Chef Contestant »

Coining a New Term: The Loonisphere

Posted on: July 11, 2009 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

This new term occurred to me as a useful one for those of us who regularly chronicle the nuttiness of the right wing: the Loonisphere. The loonisphere is a magical place where the laws of logic do not apply. A place where not allowing someone to oppress another is a violation of the oppressor's religious freedom, where quitting one's job is done to avoid being a quitter, where destroying the constitution is necessary to prevent terrorists from destroying the constitution and where someone who advocates killing untold numbers of people in another country can call themself "pro-life" without a hint of irony.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

NRO must be the lunisphere's Downtown Historical District.

Posted by: steve s | July 11, 2009 9:33 AM

Ummm. Ed, you might rephrase that first sentence to remove the grammatical ambiguity. ;-)

Posted by: Russell | July 11, 2009 9:40 AM

I think there's a corresponding loonisphere on the left too - but it's signifently smaller and left influencial. It's inhabited by the 911 troofers, and not many others. It also isn't pandered to by the democratic party in the same way as the members of the loonisphere are pandered to by the republican party.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 11, 2009 9:52 AM

I've noticed a lot of the 911 troofers are right-wing anti-government loonies. It's certainly not just a phenomenon of the loony left.

Posted by: Shygetz | July 11, 2009 10:04 AM

Sure, of course there are loonies on the left. But you have to look for them. On the right wing blogosphere, you have to look to find the few sensible ones.

Posted by: steve s | July 11, 2009 10:07 AM

The Loonisphere, otherwise known as Oceania.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 11, 2009 10:12 AM

Sadie Morrison - Yep, all the right-wing loonies live in and around the Pacific Ocean Basin. Good call. [/sarcasm] - DJ
How about 'selenosphere' as a descriptor?

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 10:25 AM

DJ, there's a literary reference that you don't seem to be getting. Or was that the point of the sarcasm you noted? ;)

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 11, 2009 10:31 AM

You seem to forget 'Oceania' also has a geographical/geopolitical meaning too, although I am aware that geography is not Americans best subject. ;) - deliberately obtusely, DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 10:35 AM

You mean the Clogoshpere?

Posted by: tincture | July 11, 2009 10:51 AM

Ed: I'm sitting here watching a pair of adult loons and their two offspring, who are now almost 'teenagers' (soon they'll be sneaking out at night to eat minnows and harass egrets, I suspect) and I'm not liking the association between these wonderful creatures and the intellectual flotsam and jetsam to which you refer....

But I suppose the word "loon" is already in use...

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 11, 2009 10:58 AM

I will start using it when appropriate.

Posted by: Superduper | July 11, 2009 11:00 AM

I've been partial to "Wingnuttia" for some time.

Posted by: MikeG | July 11, 2009 11:12 AM

Palinoshere, a weird northern corner of the loonisphere.

I was pretty good at geography when a lad but had never encountered Oceania until my kids got a geography game that referenced it. I had to look it up before I would let them play.

Posted by: MikeMa | July 11, 2009 11:59 AM

MikeMA - it generally means something like: "all the rest of the world we can't be bothered classifying", "tiny countries of little interest to the civilised (read: North-Western) world" or "arse-end of the Earth".
Yes it includes Australia. :) -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 12:07 PM

Love the new word, I'll spread it around.

The political spectrum is not a horizontal line, it's better protrayed in either two or three dimensions. That allows one to see the loony left converge with the loony right into a subset of one rather than two groups. I've started perusing the Huffington Post some recently after boycotting the Washington Post and they certainly spread a lot of woo over there, much of which is anti-science.

I just coined a new word myself that I entered into Jerry Coyne's contest. Coyne is looking for a word to describe Chris Mooney's particular form of accomodationism. Self-proclaimed atheist Mooney has recently been arguing for Science to reduce its truthiness standards to better market itself to the anti-science people. I came up with "appeaseists" - conflating appeasement with atheism.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 12:08 PM

I think "loonisphere" is brilliant. By association with the terms stratosphere, ionosphere, etc. it captures the notion of "way out there" and being the antithesis of "grounded" (as in grounded in reality).

Posted by: Dick Lessard | July 11, 2009 12:09 PM

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Posted by: DarkSyde | July 11, 2009 12:10 PM

DS - "Oh get the flock outta here!" :D -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 12:12 PM

DJ,
Yup, that was the definition I found years ago. Ten years later I find in a room of 20 Americans, I will be the only one who knows it.

As for it including stuff at the arse end of the world, you just need to turn your map around;-)

Posted by: MikeMa | July 11, 2009 12:15 PM

The definition was coined by the (then sitting) Aussie PM, Paul Keating*.
He was also (in)famous for placing his hand gently in the small of the Queen of England's back and guiding her toward a waiting dignitary. - DJ
*He was a man who liked using very colourful turns of phrase

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 12:23 PM

Ed,
This needs a small modification,

LOONEYSPHERE, or LOONEY'S-PHERE

.... be-deh, be-deh, be-de th-th-th-that's all folks,

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-w7CclVneVpw/rare_porky_the_pig_thats_all_folks/

What a Maroon!

Posted by: The Pale Scot | July 11, 2009 12:32 PM

The Loonisphere is very real. When I feel evil I sometimes send sarcastic questions to religious right groups. If I describe myself as a Christian fundamentalist they send serious and somewhat disturbing replies. One time I asked Focus on the family if old testament laws against adultery could be enacted in the modern United States. They replied with two articals- one condemning adultery and one praiseing the death penalty!

Posted by: PettyD | July 11, 2009 1:04 PM

I thought they were all known as "netloons".
Anne G

Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 11, 2009 3:15 PM

I'm not sure we need a new term when we already have "faith-based."

Posted by: vjack | July 11, 2009 3:35 PM

Dude, you totally fucked up! It's called the Wackaloonisphere!!!

Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | July 11, 2009 5:08 PM

while we're at it, can we start calling them what they really are? They aren't conservatives. They're "Regressives" - and they need to be recognized as such.

Thus, the Loonisphere is populated by Regressives, who constantly have their heads on backwards (or shoved in their ass).

Hmm... why am I reminded of a particular layer of Hell?

Posted by: TheEngima23 | July 11, 2009 5:08 PM

On July 11, 2009 1:04 PM, PettyD posted:

One time I asked Focus on the family if old testament laws against adultery could be enacted in the modern United States. They replied with two articles- one condemning adultery and one praising the death penalty!

The Religious Right-wing has been pretty quiet on Sanford and Ensign. I guess the parts of Leviticus that don't apply to homosexuals are the parts that have to be read "in context".

Posted by: Blue Nine | July 11, 2009 5:11 PM

I think there's a corresponding loonisphere on the left too - but it's signifently smaller and left influencial. It's inhabited by the 911 troofers, and not many others.

At the risk of being dogpiled, me take a crack at it-- the left loonisphere is composed of advocates for "tolerance" who think that racists and holocaust deniers should be locked up, members of PETA who think that there is no justification for killing animals yet belong to an organization which kills thousands yearly, opponents of biotechnology applied to food on the grounds that it's "inhumane" despite the fact that it has saved over a billion people from starvation, free speech proponents who support university campus speech codes, and those who let the same things slide when done by Obama that they would've screeched their heads off about when done by Bush (i.e., mindless partisans).

Shygetz is right-- the 9/11 "troofer" category seems to be mainly composed of right-wingers...or at least, people who would be right-wing if they trusted any group, for anything, anywhere, anyhow.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 11, 2009 5:53 PM

Umm, that should read "At the risk of being dogpiled, let me take a crack at it." Me talk pretty one day.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 11, 2009 5:56 PM

I think there's a corresponding loonisphere on the left too - but it's signifently smaller and left influencial. It's inhabited by the 911 troofers, and not many others.

There are also the anarchists, the extreme environmentalists and animal rights activists, and the female supremacists (of which there aren't nearly as many as conservatives think there are). But yeah, your point still stands that Democrats do not pander to these people.

Michael Heath: I've been confused on this for a while, and I don't feel like actually reading his book. Does Mooney actually advocate changing science journals and textbooks to appeal to creationists? Or does he just think we should do a better job advertising science to religious people? One of those is batshit insane and the other should be obvious.

Posted by: Brandon | July 11, 2009 6:13 PM

From Wikipedia :-
" Bizarro and the Bizarro World have become somewhat well known in popular culture, and the term Bizarro is used as to describe anything that uses twisted logic or that is the opposite of something else."

Posted by: grasshopper | July 11, 2009 6:23 PM

Brandon wrote:

I've been confused on this for a while, and I don't feel like actually reading his book. Does Mooney actually advocate changing science journals and textbooks to appeal to creationists? Or does he just think we should do a better job advertising science to religious people? One of those is batshit insane and the other should be obvious.

The arguments between Mooney and others in their respective blogs are incredibly long and in my opinion, not worthy of being read given they spend too much on the personal aspect rather than the policy aspect. My eyes have glazed over far too many times to link to any particular posts.

However, PZ did an excellent review of Mooney's new book that hits your question directly regarding Mooney advocating concession regarding Pluto being declassified as a planet. PZ's takedown of Mooney's book is also a great argument worth reading beyond that point, assuming PZ's assertions are valid (I haven't read Mooney's book but plan to soon). Given that Mooney's "rebuttal" did not directly rebut PZ's points provides confidence that PZ's argument is valid. Mooney does disclose he plans to provide a better rebuttal than his original one in a couple of days, where I found his original one to be a sophmoric whine.

This link is PZ piling on more in his criticism of Mooney's book.

Like a lot of people I think Mooney's first book, Republican War on Science was a masterpiece. I also agree with Mooney regarding Science's need to better market itself which includes improved framing. However his position in my opinion has become one too close to appeasement and the argument I have read, mostly coming from Coyne and PZ, seem to be the superior arguments, especially since their opponents so often misrepresent those arguments.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 6:52 PM

Yup, that was the definition I found years ago. Ten years later I find in a room of 20 Americans, I will be the only one who knows it.

Hmmm, I haven't run into that problem, of course a large number of my friends are educators and most of my closest friends are social studies educators ... ;o)

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 11, 2009 7:09 PM

dogmeatIB
It really isn't always that bad. I work in IT with some really smart people with interests outside of computers. They tend to know things outside their fields. My wife's social connections, all educated in the Philly public schools, know very little outside their professions and don't care.

This ties into the debate that PZ & Chris Mooney are having on how to present science. I would have bent over pretty far toward the accomodationists just to prevent the "eyes glazing over" phenomenon and get more science in front of the woo-happy. But after reading PZ's review, I have to agree with him that it does science no credit present a softer, mushy side just so that soft thinkers are not made uncomfortable.

It makes sense to me to get scientific method taught early, even in grade school if the appropriate venue can be found. Prepare the ground on easy, non controversial stuff so that when evolution and critical thinking are opened up, many of the minds are at least on the right page.

/rambling

Posted by: MikeMa | July 11, 2009 8:14 PM

Hmmm... It looks like Sadie and I are the only ones to have read 1984.... It's OK, Sadie... at least I got the reference for Oceania.

Posted by: BAllanJ | July 11, 2009 8:23 PM

Thanks for the confirmation. I, too, figured Oceania was a reference to 1984 ... but I was too lazy to open a new window to look it up.
And, seconding and earlier commenter, wingnuttia is a good term. But it's fine to have synonyms.

Posted by: Gerry L | July 12, 2009 12:03 AM

Damn, Mooney has really screwed up to get me to actually agree with PZ Myers. Especially sad since that man has done good work.

I am a full blown accomodationist and I'll say this right now: a scientist's job is to find the facts and the theories and put them on paper. No scientist should ever flick an eyelash based on how his conclusions will make people feel. The job of reaching out to people lies with the media and the popular science writers, not the scientists. But then again, I might be using the wrong definition of accomodationist.

Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2009 1:32 AM

I don't see either truth or justice in coyne or myers' DEPICTIONS of what either The Intersection or NCSE are saying, sorry. They're fighting strawmen while complaining about strawmanism.

Since it's rapidly degenerating into emotionalism and tribalism, perhaps a separation is in order. Mooney and any co-author should leave Coyne and Myers alone and vice versa.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 12, 2009 2:49 AM

"I think there's a corresponding loonisphere on the left too - but it's signifently smaller and left influencial. It's inhabited by the 911 troofers, and not many others"

Don't forget (although we'd love to) Jenny mCarthy and the other anti-vaccers, and the more radical environmentalists, PETA (Which has been mentioned before) and ELF, and others, including the nutters who firebombed UCSC professors' houses earlier this year.

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 12, 2009 6:23 AM

Michael Heath:

I think your term "appeasists" is probably a bit too arcane for some folks (like the oft mentioned wingnuts) to decipher. I think I would use the term "Athepeasists" or just fall back on "fucking moron".

DingoJack:

Does Oceania incluce Micornesia? I certainly hope not, because like most murkins I like to think of the Micronesiacs as a bunch of happy, peaceful savages living idlyllic lives in the primitive splendors of a Gauginishly colored paradise.

What the question, again?

Posted by: democommie | July 12, 2009 9:05 AM

I submitted your athepeasits. I agree it's better than mine.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 9:25 AM

Re Michael Heath

One of problems with the debate going on over accommodationism between Myers/Coyne and Mooney/Kirshenbaum is that the latter blog has allowed a couple of whackjobs to hijack the threads. I'm speaking of Anthony McCarthy and John Kwok who, together, account for almost 1/2 of the comments on the accommodationist threads. Mr. McCarthy adds nothing to the discussion as he is obviously totally uninformed about science while whatever salient points Mr. Kwok makes are lost in his incessant name dropping, character assassination, and nattering about his high school and its illustrious graduates. I have several times recommended to Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirshenbaum that they limit McCarthy and Kwok to 1 comment each per day, as Jason Rosenhouse has done, but so far no action (other commentors have called for the two to be banned altogether, as they have been over at PZs' blog).

If one ignores McCarthy and Kwok, there is actually some interesting discussion occurring over there.

Posted by: SLC | July 12, 2009 9:28 AM

Has McCarthy been banned at Pharyngula? I knew Kwok was (deservedly so. What an insufferable creep.)

Posted by: Rick R | July 12, 2009 10:07 AM

SLC - quite frankly, I never got past what I thought were inane overly-long arguments by Mooney, in spite of my originally being supportive of his arguments when I was first exposed to them a couple of years ago. I've also found Coyne's arguments overly long as well. So I've never read the comments on those topics in Mooney's blog. From now on maybe I'll skip Mooney's argument and scan the comments per your advice.

Is the Andrew McCarthy referenced here the NRO columnist, ex-Prosecutor?

I did watch Kwok go down in self-inflicted flames at PZ's blog. One of the few blog posts in PZ's forum where I read the comments.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 11:09 AM

Re Michael Heath

It's Anthony McCarthy and AFAIK, he is not related to the former prosecutor. I have the impression from some comments he has made in the past that he is a school teacher in New York City. By the way, he is also been banned over at PZs' blog.

Posted by: SLC | July 12, 2009 1:27 PM

I think a mere loonisphere may not be large enough to hold everyone who qualifies for admittance.

I think a 'looniverse' might have just enough room.

How or where the looniverse might fit into the multiverse is a question for minds more creative than mine.

Posted by: Mary Talley | July 12, 2009 2:47 PM

I think "looniverse" is the term used to encompass all the characters from Looney Tunes and its spin-offs.

Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2009 3:43 PM

Brandon, that will teach me not to post something without googling it first.

Posted by: Mary Talley | July 12, 2009 5:09 PM

SLC,
McCarthy has not been banned by PZ. Rather he only claims to have been. PZ says he's not; PZ's dungeon list doesn't have him; a poster put up a link to a comment by McCarthy circa mid-May... I think McCarthy has just been caught in a big lie and simply won't admit to it. He's trying to change the goalpost to 'well, I really don't care...'. Even after all that evidence he's still claiming to be banned -- trending into paranoid conspiracy theories about suddenly PZ unbanning him and placing the evidence.

As for Kwok, ahhh. He keeps claiming on Mooney's blog that he's not obsessed with PZ, but essentially every post of his is about PZ or someone who posts on PZ's blog.

But yeah, your point still stands that Democrats do not pander to these people.

In general, I think this is true. I'm sure that nitpickers could find particular instances of such pandering but I think honest individuals will find the trend disproportionally goes the other way.

Posted by: Don't Panic | July 12, 2009 9:59 PM

Re Don't Panic

I stand corrected relative to Mr. McCarthy. I got the impression from something that PZ wrote on one of the threads that he had also given the gentleman the bums rush.

As for the Kowk, he clearly is someone with some intelligence who, unfortunately, is also operating with less then 52 cards in his deck.

Posted by: SLC | July 13, 2009 6:53 AM