The Link between Russia and White Supremacy in the White House

EXACTLY!

A very good observation, but my sense is that the white supremacy characteristic, while common to both threads (one explicit, the other implicit) could be coincidental. I am not sure that it matters to Trump whether Putin is overtly or subtly racist - it matters more to BOTH men whether they can get goodies for themselves by associating with the other. Common racism doe snot hurt, I guess - but I don;t think it's a driving factor.

I was more upset by the fact that she did not include a THIRD throughline of environmental / science insouciance and denial, but that did not really fit the narrative she had worked up. I'll forgive her - this time.

No need to wait to see if you are wrong. You are wrong. It is tiring that "never Trumpers" continue with this idiotic witch hunt and playing in the race card as well. One day, you will look back on your lame diatribe and see how wrong you really are. While Russian socialists may be supremacists, Trump is no more a racist than you because your ancestors may have owned slaves. Like I said- more idiotic diatribe . You have fallen into the globalist trap and it is unbecoming of you. Nice try, globalist!

Interesting to see the pushback here and in private emails to this particular post.

Hit a nerve, did it?

"Trump is no more a racist"

The question of whether President Trump is a racist or merely acknowledges that the current Republican party needs the support of racists (and white supremacists, and Nazi sympathizers of different degree) is complicated.

I think he's a racist, based on his past actions and his way too chummy with them actions. I also realize that his actions and statements could be a cold hearted political decision: he knew he couldn't be elected without their support (hence his development of the birther bullshit). Am I 100% certain he's a racist? No. Am I over 99% certain he is? Yes.

Do I think he is a Nazi? No. In my opinion the only people who should be shackled with that horrible label are people who claim it for themselves.

Do I think these opinions are a "globalist" conspiracy? Hell no. Globalism used that way is a catch-all phrase for people too lazy to put in the effort to think about complex issues.

Whether President Trump is or is not a racist is, in the end, not important. What is important is that he (as well as his advisors) recognized the importance of the tools Reagan used: the political weaponization of racist dog whistles and repeated lies (repeat them so often that your target audience believes them). It is the facts that an alarming number of people believe President Obama was an extreme leftist, that the people covered by the "Dreamer" act should be deported because they are "not worthy of being here", that we are "the highest taxed country in the world", and so on, that is truly alarming. Where did all these stupid people come from?

Globalism used that way is a catch-all phrase for people too lazy to put in the effort to think about complex issues.

shoudl be

Globalism used that way is a catch-all phrase used bypeople too lazy to put in the effort to think about complex issues.

I've been relaxing with two single malt whiskeys. One too many for careful typing.

in private emails...

Where is your email address?

The e-mail hack of the DNC had e-mails for weeks after CrowdStrike supposedly secured the server and blamed the Russians for the hack; majority were after CrowdStrike was on the scene. The major uptick in e-mails is the same time that hillaryclinton.com appears.

Not sure what my comment @7 (prior to MikeN's first comment about DNC) is for. Apparently I hit "submit" on my phone without realizing it. Major apologies.

Hmm. I tend to see it as clusters of similar bad ideas taking root in certain authoritarian types. Nothing about the Trump-oligarch-organized crime cohort (and fellow travelers) excludes racism. Rather it's a good fit for them--entitled superiority and sociopathic crowd manipulation. Better to keep 'em divided and simple minded. Plus too much meritocracy can be risky to entrenched power you know...

Ex. see ripssawff above: evidence free gas lighting from a rabid rip-off artist.

If we dissect the writings “(If you can call them writings) or spewings of a typical con troll, you will find common phrases in use such as :

“never Trumpers”
idiotic witch hunt
Trump is no more a racist than you
Globalist trap

Such phrases are typically parroted mindlessly and are rarely used to any good effect except to show the ignorance of the writer. “Never Trumpers” was a phrase used to refer to Republicans who refused to endorse Trump. Totally misplaced here. “Witch Hunt” is also a painfully inappropriate and insensitive phrase used by the chief dummy himself, and would have been better used to describe the his own baseless attacks on Obama. Searching out Russian attacks meant to corrupt and denigrate our system of government is not a “Witch Hunt”. The Russians who brought you North Korea , Syria, Afghanistan and a thousand and one other atrocities are not fine people. Claiming that “Trump is no more racist than you” is also a lot of hot air. Trump never had a problem discriminating against minority groups while he was a landlord, and his blatantly racist attempt to vilify Mexicans and Muslims speaks for itself.... unless you have had political sealing wax poured into your hearing holes by the likes of Limbaugh and all the other blowhard pea brains of right wing media, that is.

And finally, “Globalist trap”. The paranoia of the cry baby right that they will not be able to compete in world markets is a stark reminder of their pathetic insecurity and isolation from reality.

Having been old enough to have read the ads tRUMP put in the paper to have the young black lads, dubbed the Central Park 5, killed because tRUMP was sure the were guilty is a clue. The FACT that he doubled down on that after they were exonerated by DNA evidence i another clue.

His refusing to give lodging to people of colour... there is another clue. That he double down and did it over and over in spite of fines, is the kicker... so what the hell are you even arguing about when saying tRUMP MAY be racist?

Hid birther stance alone should be enough and all of this was known BEFORE the election!

tRUMP has been a bigot and a racist his entire life, starting at the feet of his father. WTF Americans, I see your problem. Most of you are racist... but think you are not!~!

Here are 22 pages of URLs that show tRUMP's racist/bigoted past: https://plus.google.com/+Kittyspurrimperfectlypurfect/posts/hgPYR22LgAV

As soon as Rips called the Russian government 'socialist' he could be dismissed. Putin and his gang are embedded in the global corporate capitalist order. What I find appalling is how many progressives adore Putin and write as if he is on the left. He isn't.

The feigned indignation (what some theorists have called deigned infignation) over Trump's being called out as a White Nationalist is a sure sign of innumeracy and lingering resentment about failed high-school Algebra classes.

Even POTUS makes little secret of his patriotism—a.k.a. nationalism—and, although I'm no American, I'm pretty sure I heard on NPR that Trump himself is Caucasian.

It is trivial (albeit not trivial enough to leave as an exercise to the reader) to show that

Anglo-Saxon + patriot
= white + nationalist
= White + Nationalist
= White Nationalist
(where Q = E = D).

Is it any wonder, then, that such a racist would find himself at home not in the party of Abraham Lincoln but the party of Robert Byrd?

If I can understand this—and, again, I understand literally nothing about US society—then why can't US society?

SteveP,

thank you for FINALLY saying what nobody seems to have the bravery to acknowledge, especially if they're well-read or educated:

That the "attempt to vilify... Muslims" is "blatantly racist."

As you argue, Muslims are blatantly a race. The whole idea that Islam is a religion practiced mainly by Indonesians is a blatantly racist attempt by blatant racists to make vilification of the Muslim race less blatant.

Listen, folks: Muslims are an Islamic-speaking Semitic people who live in the Mid East, crammed like ghettoized sardines into the tiny sliver of the region that isn't Israel. We like to think of them as different-sounding, whereas actually Islamic is much closer to other guttural languages (like Jewish) than we like to admit.

Islamophobia—a word invented by diagnosticians and used by psychologists to treat patients, as the great Christopher Hitches humanely quipped—is simply fear of swarthy people by another name, therefore.

I don't use the word evil much, but racism is evil.

Finally, SteveP, thank you for reminding us of the little-mentioned fact that "Russians are not fine people."

And I couldn't agree more when you point out that a range of countries, from Syria to North Kores to Afghanistan, are "atrocities."

I look forward to a world without Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan, Russians and other atrocities, but I'm at an age now when I'm increasingly aware that that beautiful dream is not mine, but my children's, to achieve.

Bit first they have to make it through the next 3 racist years.

“What I find appalling is how many progressives adore Putin and write as if he is on the left. “
Jeff Harvey- I nominate that for the award for the most mis-informative and stupid line of the morning.

“The feigned indignation (what some theorists have called deigned infignation) over Trump’s being called out as a White Nationalist is a sure sign of innumeracy and lingering resentment about failed high-school Algebra classes. “- Brad Keyes

Uh-Oh. Jeff, you have some serious competition.

Brad, I would strongly suggest that you don't try to wield semantic precision like a cudgel if you can't handle it yourself, and I want to point out to you that you are sending some conflicting messages . You are writing in a tone which tries to send the message that you are the class smarty, while at the same time you are transmitting poorly constructed arguments that do not lend much credence to that first argument. For instance, you are showing some serious tone deafness by trying to construct algebraic equations with multiple ambiguous terms that neglect to factor in current usage. It may sound impressive but it is really bullshit. You have accomplished non demonstrandum . As to Islam, I know quite well that Islam is a religion and not a “race”, and have known that for half a century. I also know that the concept of race is a widely abused characterization of individuals based on shared traits, the most obvious being skin color, and that it is widely and successfully used to create primitive tribalist hatred of other individuals. Also, it should be clear that Islam, in being a religion that has been accepting of people of all colors, is quite probably going to have a lot of adherents that don't look quite like the members of Christian churches which have been, in many cases, highly exclusionary and segregated by class and ethnicity. So a Muslim ban does, in fact, end up being racist, since the color and ethnicity of the people excluded from primarily Muslim countries will tend to be different from that of, say, the white neo-nazis who support Trump's Muslim ban.

Also, if you can't understand or refuse to used shared short hand expressions to represent larger concepts, you end up muttering to yourself in your grandiose corner. And that is precisely what you are doing.

Have a nice day.

Is it any wonder, then, that such a racist would find himself at home not in the party of Abraham Lincoln but the party of Robert Byrd?

Aaah, the favorite rant of the ignorant and the liars -- pretending the positions of the parties since the passage of the rights legislation in the 60s is the same as it was 100 years or more in the past.

Why would racists move the Republican party? Because they were welcomed there with open arms in the 60s, that's why. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows that.

Liars like you -- don't care.

Dean, so full of yourself, aren't you. These blogs are set ups for people like you to use to give yourself a self-inflated ego. Always tearing down, nothing really positive, attacking others who have even a slight difference of opinion. You are intellectually dishonest.

Come on! Trump is a racist because he was a landlord? Show the real evidence! But you cannot show real evidence. Just accuse those who call you on repeating these baseless claims.
There is no evidence of racism. By your own insubstantial evidence, every landlord, every mortgage company and bank in America is racist. Just baseless spin and discredited accusations which you attempt to pass off as fact.

Yes, all of you are still wrong and will never be right. You are globalists and as bad as Antifas. Wake up and get real!

The evidence that Trump was materially and directly involved in maintaining segregated housing in Queens is well established and, simply, not in dispute.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades…

Ripsawff, you seem to be as stupid as your title. Look above and you'll see me saying this:

I think he’s a racist, based on his past actions and his way too chummy with them actions. I also realize that his actions and statements could be a cold hearted political decision: he knew he couldn’t be elected without their support (hence his development of the birther bullshit). Am I 100% certain he’s a racist? No. Am I over 99% certain he is? Yes.

Why do i believe it? His discriminatory actions related to his businesses. His close association with the KKK and white supremacists. His courting of them during the campaign. His reason for starting the birther nonsense was to court racists. Your dismissal of those actions is either intentionally dishonest or naturally stupid.

You are globalists and as bad as Antifas. Wake up and get real!

Aaah, the "globalist" crap -- from someone who is so indirect that there is no real meaning behind it.

And the "Antifa" crap -- why is it you folks on the right have to attach bad intentions and imply terrorist motives to a group opposed to racism, the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the rest of the people who have two roles: they are the worst the United States has to offer, and they are the strongest core of the modern right.

Oh, wait -- it's because of the importance of KKK members, white supremacists, and neo Nazis, in the Republican party that you are forced to vilify the people who oppose them. You've not only shown your lack of intelligence, you've shown your lack of integrity.

... and then there's Donald and the Central Park Five...

SteveP, may I advise you to take your head out from between the cheeks of your butt and check up the blogs or Facebook pages of people like Caitlin Johnstone or even someone I normally admire, Pepe Escobar. There is little doubt that these people are nominally on the left but they are writing as if Putin is a man of peace and even praising Trump, Bannon and others on the alt right. Indeed, Johnstone has made a plea for progressives to work with people on the alt right like Mike Cernovich who they think are equally opposed to the neoliberal order as they are. They are employing the adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"... in this case. Indeed, Jeffery St. Clair and others on Counterpunch have written extensively about this bizarre marriage and have rightfully condemned it.

That said, I do agree that this obsession with blaming Russia for the election of Trump is misplaced. The Democrats lost the election, Trump did not win it. Clinton was abominable and ran an utterly appalling campaign, and many were turned off by the clear link between the establishment Democrats and the banking/corporate lobby. Moreover, given how much the US has interfered in foreign elections - including Yeltsin's win - its a bit rich for anyone in the US to be crying foul over any alleged Russian interference.

SteveP,

you forgot to mention all the Jews in Islam, which would have made your point about the racial inclusiveness of that great faith tradition even stronger. Otherwise, a magisterial argument—chapeau bas.

And it's one that simply can't be stressed enough: exclusion of and discrimination against Muslims is profoundly racist because of the sheer colorblindness involved.

The contrast you touch on between Islam—an identity which, as you remind us, has no particular racial connotation—and neo-Nazism was another masterstroke, and not-at-all-suicidal to your position.

After all, none of us would dream of vilifying neo-Nazism or neo-Nazis, since, as you point out, white people are overrepresented in that group. To ban (say) neo-Nazis from one's group of friends or political donors would de facto skew the dermatological spectrum of one's circle from a rainbow to something more akin to a website's judiciously-specific design palette.

Which would be wrong.

And that's what matters in racism, isn't it: the effect, not the intention.

There's a good reason why anyone who casually dropped an anti-neo-Nazist (or neoNazophobic) remark at a dinner party would be as welcome as a pig in a madrassah: such a faux pas cuts straight to your basic decency almost as fatally as if you were to make a homophobic wisecrack or light up a Marlboro.

Racism against neo-Nazis might not be quite as unacceptable in polite company as, say, racism against climate deniers—who are exclusively white males aged 60+ (or have been ever since our gracious host neutralized the aberrant Willie Soon)—not yet, anyway. But people are gradually getting the message that such pernicious hatethink is indefensible, and it won't be long until neo-Nazis join bankers, climate skeptics, taxi drivers, Muslims and other racially-encoded categories of human beings among the deservingly protected species.

Ergo (if you know how basic sequiturs work) Islamophobic acts must be the mother of all ethnic cleansings: precisely because they marginalize a racially-nondescript, ethnically-eclectic set of human beings purely on the basis of their voluntary adherence to an anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-dog, anti-music, anti-woman ideology. Which they can't help any more than a non-Russian can help being born non-Russian.

(In fact I can think of no better definition of the word racism, can I? No. That's how much of a genius I am.)

Let us not praise Trump by false damnation, however—for it would be remiss of us to forget the single most unconscionably racist aspect of his whole diseased personality: his willing tolerance of Russians, who are not a fine people [h/t SteveP].

Basic, basic logic, people.

dean,

So true, so true:

Aaah, the favorite rant of the ignorant and the liars — pretending the positions of the parties since the passage of the rights legislation in the 60s is the same as it was 100 years or more in the past.

Amen.

That would be as insane as pretending someone's racial principles in 2017 are the same as they were when he was running his dad's real-estate empire in 1973. Patently fallacious.

Why would racists move the Republican party? Because they were welcomed there with open arms in the 60s, that’s why. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows that.

Exactly.

I'm sure Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice would never have joined the Republican Party had they understood anything about the past (or, as it was known at the time, the present). But then, you can't really expect People Like That to be as well-read as someone like you, can you, "dean"?

Oh, wait — it’s because of the importance of KKK members, white supremacists, and neo Nazis, in the Republican party that you are forced to vilify the people who oppose them.

Exactly.

They don't call the GOP "The Anti-Lincoln Party of KKK Member Robert D Byrd" for nothing, do they?

No.

No they don't.

> “Never Trumpers” was a phrase used to refer to Republicans who refused to endorse Trump.

No, it is a phrase they used for themselves. The point was to send a message to primary voters that nominating Trump would lead to disaster, because they would not support him in the general election; there would be no unifying around the nominee Trump.

Let us not praise Trump by false damnation, however

Or faint damnation, even.

Brad, your devotion to ignoring facts is astounding.

"That would be as insane as pretending someone’s racial principles in 2017 are the same as they were when he was running his dad’s real-estate empire in 1973. Patently fallacious"

Purposefully misleading by you. We have a continuing path of behavior from Trump from 1973 to now. He has not changed his behavior at all. You are lying.

"I’m sure Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice would never have joined the Republican Party had they understood anything about the past (or, as it was known at the time, the present). "

Purposefully misleading. The point is that the modern Republican party welcomes racists as a general rule -- you need only look at the words and actions of its leaders. The point is not that there is nobody in the party who opposes scum like the US racists and others of that ilk. Again, dishonesty on your part. Just as stupid as your demonstrated lack of knowledge of "algebra" in your previous comment.

Do you truly not know that the racists generally left the Democratic party in the 60s for the Republicans, and have stewed there ever since?

Given your repeated dishonest little rants, I'm betting you do. You are just too bigoted to care.

While I stand by my original,post on the original topic, I cannot believe there are people who do NOT see the obvious and blatant racism and bigotry and fascism that is exhibited by Trump and clearly recognized the most racist, fascist groups in this country. "One is known by the company one keeps' has never before been so applicable as it is here.

Bruce,

you are unjust to the author:

I was more upset by the fact that she did not include a THIRD throughline of environmental / science insouciance and denial, but that did not really fit the narrative she had worked up.

Such a "throughline" may be apposite on a different kind of website, but this is politicsblogs dot com, not environmentalblogs or scienceblogs. Please respect local values, Bruce, when you're in the company of readers and commenters who came here in search of cutting-edge anti-Trump commentary, not techno-sciento-geekery.

“One is known by the company one keeps’ has never before been so applicable as it is here.

Hmmm.

Let me get this straight: Guilt By Association, far from being a fallacy, is actually a dependable heuristic, which "has never before been so applicable" as it is in this forum / thread / ScienceBall PoliticsBall arena?

I guess you must be accusing "dean" of the sins of which scum like me are Guilty, By Association (devotion to ignoring facts, purposefully misleading, lying, repeated dishonest little rants, being too bigoted to care)?!

But that would be like calling Christ a tax collector, leper and whore.

dean,

He has not changed his behavior at all. You are lying.

If Trump has not changed his behavior at all (a possibility I can't rule out since, as I've repeatedly stipulated, I don't follow the US news), then I'm sure it ought to be the easiest thing in the world for our gracious host to marshall a more up-to-date datum than donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case—to quote the URL he linked me to.

Meanwhile, I'm entitled to judge the structure of an argument on its merits alone, without taking into account additional premises I'm not personally aware of (since, as I've repeatedly stipulated, I don't follow the US news).

In any case, Greg has every right to use the well-known scientific fact that people don't really change to draw a link between Trump's behaviour in the early 70s and his fitness or otherwise to occupy the Oval Office in the late 2010s.

He'd have a point. People don't change. Not often, at any rate.

And I'd have every right to point out that Republicans were the party of Lincoln, and Democrats were the party of Byrd.

"Lying"??

Methinks the lady doth froth too much at the mouth.

Hi Jeff Hayes and Brad Keyes. There are so many more interesting and productive things in life to do than to read the insessent babblings of idiots. Why don't you two go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut and report back to us on how that goes. Kay?
Have a nice day. Cheers!

"And I’d have every right to point out that Republicans were the party of Lincoln, and Democrats were the party of Byrd."

And you again are ignoring the fact that the Republicans have been, since the 1960s, the preferred haven for racists, bigots, and apparently now neo Nazis.

Yes, you are a congenital liar.

"One is the love of Russia and Putin by Trump, his unwavering stance that Russia and Putin can do no wrong."

Trump backs NATO defense pact, criticizes Russia
http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-backs-nato-defense-pact-criticizes…

Do you people check anything that you write?

I like watching to see who is going to stand as an apologist for Trump, racism, climate change denial etc.

Helps me keep up with who the nutters are.

Jeff,

Well, that sure teaches us, doesn't it? "SteveP" was obviously right, we were obviously wrong, and he obviously knew we knew it.

You can tell "SteveP" won the argument because why else would he start swearing, misspelling simple words, getting your name wrong and making excuses to run away?

Does that sound like the behavior of a man who's just been lost a debate?

I think not!

I THINK NOT.

SteveP,

on behalf of both Jeff and myself I'd like to thank you for being such a gentleman ("Cheers!") and not holding our cluelessness against us. I've never been in your shoes, but if I were arguing with people who were so misguided that I couldn't even decide where to begin correcting, rebutting or explaining their infinite errors, I don't think I'd be able to control my temper the way you do.

You're all class, all the way, "SteveP." It's an honor to lose an argument to such a chivalrous genius.

I like watching to see who is going to stand up as a believer in the existence of entities like "climate change denial," "racism against Islam," etc.

Helps me keep up with who the nutters are.

It almost seems a shame to inject mundane reality into proceedings by citing the article 'There Is No Such Thing As Climate Change Denial' by John Cook, which was published by The Conversation, a respected intergovernmental outlet for academic journalism.

So I wont. But suffice it to say:

When John Cook tells you that "nobody denies climate change," trust me: nobody denies climate change.

If climate change denial were real, Cook would be the first to know about it. He did, after all, create and deliver a Massively Multiplayer Online Course for UQx on the topic of the non-existent entity.

Cook, a blogscientist with a decade-old BSc in the climate-irrelevant field of solar physics, even dedicated a whole chapter of his own climate-science textbook to the topic of (putative) climate change denial, with special focus on the fact that if denialists existed, they'd likely make frequent use of the Fake Experts ploy.

(For instance, while real people get their climate science from climate scientists, make-believe folk like denialists would probably get their climate science from a blogscientist with a decade-old Bachelors in some subject that has nothing to do with climate change, like the sun, completely ignoring the fact that It's Not The Sun!)

Greg, How very odd. That apparently thorough Bill Moyers list makes no mention of Trump's criticism of Russia, even though it was widely reported in the media at the time (I can remember it, despite not being interested in such news).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-usa-trump/trump-criticizes-ru…

I wonder what else Moyers left out?

In fact, regarding Trump's Warsaw speech, all the news outlets reported it as 'Trump criticises Russia', or 'Trump chides Russia', but Bill Moyers reports it as 'Trump Refuses to Blame Russia'. Clearly Moyers is not a reliable source. If you get your information from him, that might explain why you have such a warped view of reality!

"dean",

so, so true, as always:

the Republicans have been, since the 1960s, the preferred haven for racists, bigots, and apparently now neo Nazis.

For example, you'd never find a Democrat making that casually racist gaffe a few years back about the African-American politician who was "a dream come true" because he was—mirabile dictu!—"clean and articulate."

I can't remember who that was—presumably some crusty old Klanner discussing Colin Powell—but the ugly sentiment behind it was pure GOP through and through, wasn't it?

Of course, never say never; there are always exceptions that prove the rule. But even if—by some appalling oversight—the Democrats did allow someone with such an 18th-century attitude towards black America into their midst, he/she would never be allowed to rise very high in their closely-vetted, focus-tested hierarchy of public leadership, that's for sure.

March 13th 2014:

“We should definitely do sanctions and we have to show some strengths. I mean, Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time,” Trump said. “I just hope that Obama, who’s not looking too good, doesn’t do something very foolish and very stupid to show his manhood.”

(I don't know whether Obama did show anyone his manhood. I expect not or we would have heard about it.)

Brad

Nitpicking again. A sure sign that you have nothing of substance or interest to say.

Oh Dear. BK playing with words again. Let us see the full statement which is:

In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.

Source

John Cook must have really annoyed BK for that latter to produce such a brain fart of vapid bile, miss-characterising Cook in such a mean spirited and obviously contentious way as we see at #40.

Such words are hardly worth contending for the author of #40 has condemned himself and any future posts he may fling into this thread.

Now I know that you BK are just itching to turn this into an argument about consensus but that was done to death, and beyond, on another thread not far from this one. Therefore that can be classed as done here too especially as we understand the true nature of the consensus. Consensus which is explained at length in that Conversation article by John Cook. The absence of any posts by you there suggests they have been expunged - that must have really irked.

Admittedly I am guessing as to you having a footprint in that thread (after all it is over four years old), but as you are clearly aware of it, your not taking part is not believable.

Bruce,

Brad, I cannot tell if you are being facetious

I'll try to be more obvious next time. :-)

Thanks for your thorough and closely-argued response, however—from which I actually had the rare pleasure of learning something. Brad out.

BBD,

Nitpicking again. A sure sign that you have nothing of substance or interest to say.

Ah, the accusation of pedantry: first and last resort of the monkey caught with his hand in the cookie-jar of contradiction.

Believe it or not, BBD, I'm no language Nazi. Why should I be? Most people manage to articulate themselves with no difficulty in my presence.

In fact the only word games I'm ever interested in playing are Milton Bradley's Let's Use The Right Word! (ages 6-10) and the young-adult version, Let's Speak English!.

(Relax: I'll spare you the grownups' edition, Let's Speak English Properly!, because I know your limits.)

Your habit of invoking 'climate change denial / deniers / denialists / denialization' as if such things actually existed, when even John Cook admits they're just vulgar, simplistic misconceptions, is your problem, not the rest of the world's.

If you mean something else, say something else.

It's not up to everyone else to read your turbid mind; it's up to you to clarify your own thoughts sufficiently to express them without absurdity—if you're up to the task, that is.

I'm not holding out much hope. In my experience, such sloppy language is pathognomonic of an incurable lack of intellectual rigor.

Ah, the accusation of pedantry

You were nitpicking because you have nothing to say.

And now you are being tedious again.

Lionel,

You've piqued my curiosity. In what way do you feel I've traduced John Cook's good name?? And are your objections factual or emotional?

BTW, let's not derail another thread with a debate about the nine-letter C-word. I'm happy to argue with you about it under the line at "Michael Mann did not sabotage...", where the conversation has already been tainted by the subject.

You're the first person on this page to use the nine-letter C-word.

Let us pray you're the last. :-)

You know me too well, Lionel:

The absence of any posts by you there suggests they have been expunged... Admittedly I am guessing as to you having a footprint in that thread (after all it is over four years old), but as you are clearly aware of it, your not taking part is not believable.

How can I stay mad at someone who so clearly cares?

You're right, if memory serves. But everything I wrote there was apparently just another casualty of The Conversation's mass cleansing of my opinions, which Cory Zanoni carried out immediately after (and almost as though in retaliation for!) an exposé I published about upcoming changes to the site.

PaulM, he did, but generally ignored by media. After Trump's tape the video got some more attention.

BBD

You were nitpicking because you have nothing to say.

Sigh.

I know Wurdz R Hard, but do try to keep up, BBD.

I had something to say, and I said it: there's no such thing as climate change denial and you're delusional if you think there is.

You accused me of nitpicking because you had nothing to say in your defense.

Nothing intelligent, anyway.

The term 'climate change denial' is well understood.

You are nitpicking and being boring.

The term ‘climate change denial’ is well understood.

Bullmilk.

You people can't even get the meaning of 'climate' straight, without adding "change" and "denial" into the mix.

If I asked 10 believalists to write down what they meant by 'climate change denial' on a piece of paper, fold it neatly in half and put their definitions in a box, I'd get 11 different answers.

Your parents really should have played Let's Use The Right Word! with you when you were growing up.

Then you might have picked up basic human conventions like Saying What You Mean.

Bullmilk.

Asserting complete crap again Brad? Got nothing else, obviously.

In 2011, John Cook co-authored a book with Haydn Washington called Climate Change Denial. Everybody knew what 'climate change denial' meant then and everybody knows what 'climate change denial' means now.

Stop bullshitting.

Look, most people here know you are a tiresome, preening windbag with nothing substantive to contribute. You don't have to keep underlining the fact.

BBD,

Invest in a dictionary.

'Climate change denial' refers to the [imaginary] practice of denying the mutability of the climate. The phrase is a sign[ifier] without a referent, in the sense that nobody in the real world engages in the practice signified.

There is no such thing as climate change denial, as John Cook explains in 'There is no such thing as climate change denial':

No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural).

You may think there are climate change deniers, but that's because you're delusional.

There aren't.

The last recorded denial of climate change was by one Michael E. Mann, and even he wasn't psychotic enough to pretend the climate never changed—he only denied the changes that had occurred from 1000 to 1900 CE.

Lionel,

We're all still hanging on tenterhooks to learn how exactly you think (or perhaps feel is le verb juste) I misrepresented John Cook.

Your comments are always informative, so TIA.

Brad

Everybody knows what climate change denial means. Only tedious bad faith actors like you nitpick over it because, well, you've got nothing else.

Invest in a dictionary.

‘Climate change denial’ refers to the [imaginary] practice of denying the mutability of the climate. The phrase is a sign[ifier] without a referent, in the sense that nobody in the real world engages in the practice signified.

Link to your definition. The one you appear to have made up.

There's even a Wiki, FFS:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

Stop. Bullshitting.

Brad, last shot and I am done.

If you cannot work out how you misrepresented John Cook that is because your witterings are as an ouroboros, thus impenetrable to anybody including their witterer it would seem.

BBD,

Words and phrases (including terms of art) are defined in dictionaries, by linguists who train and specialize in lexicography.

Would you get heart surgery from a plumber?

Apparently you would, since you get Wurdz from Wikipedia.

Sane people wouldn't.

All,

Well, Lionel and I are both stumped*.

Anyone have any idea how, where or in what sense I misrepresented John Cook in my comment #40?

TIA on behalf of both of us.

B
___________
*The symbolism of bilateral stumpage will not be lost on collectors of Medieval bestiaries and cryptozoological almanacs. I allude, of course, to the elusive Double Ouroboros, a mutant subspecies whose anatomy is invariably described as a figure of 8.

Much like its more familiar, unicyclic cousin, only moreso, biouroboros alchemicorum vexans was the subject of many a mead-drunk wager between monks who believed the herpetic horror subsisted by cannibalizing its own flesh, and those who believed it perpetually gave birth to itself by a process akin to modern-day bulimia.

Words and phrases (including terms of art) are defined in dictionaries, by linguists who train and specialize in lexicography.

[...] you get Wurdz from Wikipedia.

Sane people wouldn’t.

OED:

A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Good, you're learning.

See? Dictionaries aren't so frightening, are they? They might even become your friend one day.

Deniers are persons who deny something.

Climate change deniers are persons who deny climate change.

Unfortunately, nobody denies climate change.

Climate change deniers, philosophically, must ipso facto not be, BBD, d'ye see?

BBD,

Not to rub your face in your own vomit more than necessary put too fine a point on it, BBD, but are you belatedly starting to see why Wikipedia's rambling, editorializing, propagandistic "definition" would never make the cut in a grownups' dictionary?

Everybody knows that 'climate change denial' refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage. You don't even have a point.

So, you bullshit.

BBD,

how goes the lexicography denialism?

Have you managed to find a definition for the atomic phrases "climate change denier/al/ism" etc. in any reputable dictionary yet?

Shall I give you another few hours?

Or are you prepared to accept that 'climate change denial' is not a special idiom, or term of art, or anything more or less than the sum of its parts—meaning the denial of change in the climate?

Take your time.

Interestingly, I did find an unexplained, unsourced definition of 'climate denier' in the OED, but—surprise surprise!—according to Oxford, I'm not one.

LOL!

Brad, you are a still dishonest.

Nobody is saying that all evil people are in one party. You are diverting facts by trying to say that's the point about "the Republican party embracing...".

The only thing you do well is speak in weasel language so that you can claim you didn't say something when you're shown to have lied (about racists, about climate change, etc.)

I wonder how you manage to exist, give how completely you seem to have failed even a basic level of education.

BBD,

I harassed you too soon. (Cross posted.)

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic.

That's strange!

Just a while ago you told me that whoever wrote Wikipedia's entry seemed to think,

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

So that's two definitions you've supplied so far, and—whaddayaknow?—they're not even consistent.

Which is it, then:

Wikipedia's definition?

Or your new one?

I reckon if you really try, BBD, you could make it 3 for 3!

You keep pretending the phrase is universally (and presumably consistently) understood... so I wonder, which of the two meanings you've supplied—thus far—could have motivated the title of John Cook's article:

'There is no such thing as climate change denial'

And which meaning could he possibly have had in mind when he wrote:

In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.

If "climate change denial" meant what you say it meant, why would Cook say it was less "appropriate" than an alternative phrase, "consensus denial"?

Cook obviously considers "climate change denial" a misnomer—though he presumably forgot all about this when UQx approached him to teach a course on Climate Change Denial.

Apparently, then, not only is there substantial interpersonal variability in the "understanding" of the phrase, even a single human being (John Cook) can't keep his "understanding" straight from one day to the next!

What a farce.

Still—good enough for climate work, as they say.

I also note that I had the wrong person in mind for Brad's comment -- and that he took it out of context without Biden's other commentary.

More lying by omission by Brad. What an amazing bit of consistency.

Or are you prepared to accept that ‘climate change denial’ is not a special idiom, or term of art, or anything more or less than the sum of its parts—meaning the denial of change in the climate?

No, because that isn't standard usage and you know it. Nothing you say can change this.

So you bullshit. And boredom intensifies.

"SOME Words and phrases (including terms of art) are defined in dictionaries, by linguists who train and specialize in lexicography."

Fixed it for BK. Though technically dictionaries define words, lexicographers work on dictionaries, and phrases aren't defined in dictionaries but rather used as illustrative examples to help one understand the meaning and usage of a word being defined.

Meanwhile, "denial of a wide swath of modern physics" suffices as a somewhat more cumbersome but precise phrase used to describe the likes of BK, as that's what the denial of anthropogenic global warming amounts to. BK will deny that he denies physics, but I doubt if he'd agree to take the CO2 Laser Challenge ...

BBD:

No, because that isn’t standard usage and you know it.

Thank you for accusing me of "knowing" something that seems to have escaped the attention of the professional lexicographers at every dictionary-compiling University in the Anglophone world!

You flatter me. (Why? Are you trying to secure my leniency when we finally get serious and have some sort of Climate Nuremberg? Because it won't work.)

I'm sure you'd never contaminate yourself with information like this, but one of the TreehouseGate files is particularly and hilariously apposite here. I refer, obviously, to the classic comedy-of-heresies thread in which the SkSJugend set out to form a consensus on the meaning of "climate change denier," only to find that no matter how they define it, some among their own treehouse keep fitting the criteria.

Thank you, BBD, for accusing me of "knowing" the meaning of a phrase that continues to elude the very people most closely associated with its use!

All those leftist can resist Trump`s immigration policy by sheltering DREAMERS. This is what Cher asked people to do on twitter. Every leftist has the duty to give them shelter, otherwise they are going to be deported. If they don`t protect them, they want them deported and that is racist.

Ah, it's God's Dog's Best Friend, Dhogaza, hot on his buddy's heels and salivating to wolf down every discarded shard of dictionary denialism that was too rich even for BBD's taste.

Though technically dictionaries define words, lexicographers work on dictionaries, and phrases aren’t defined in dictionaries but rather used as illustrative examples to help one understand the meaning and usage of a word being defined.

ROFL!

Hoooo boy.

You wanna handle this dictionary virgin, BBD, or shall I do the honors?

Listen, dhogaza, I'm going to give you the advice that changed BBD's life, and so many others before his:

BUY ONE.

OPEN IT UP TO A PAGE AT RANDOM.

What you're about to see MAY BLOW YOUR MIND.

Dhogaza,

Meanwhile, “denial of a wide swath of modern physics” suffices as a somewhat more cumbersome but precise phrase used to describe the likes of BK, as that’s what the denial of anthropogenic global warming amounts to.

Good point. Or it would be, if I'd ever denied AGW.

I'd happily reënact the whole song and dance of accepting, confessing and professing AGW for the umptieth time if I thought mere information could make the slightest difference to your internal model of the world, Dhogaza. Alas, if you're not even aware of how dictionaries work you're probably not educable by anything I write in English.

BK will deny that he denies physics,

Whoa. How the f__k did you know what I was about to say?

You're right, of course! I do deny denying physics.

(But only because I don't deny physics.)

but I doubt if he’d agree to take the CO2 Laser Challenge …

Yawn.

Agreed to it. Took it. Passed it.

Years ago.

Better trolls, please.

"dean,"

Brad, you are a still dishonest.

Or to quote Baldrick:

Prince George is a... lovely. Prince George is a lovely.

The only question being: can you say it in English?

Nobody is saying that all evil people are in one party. You are diverting facts by trying to say that’s the point about “the Republican party embracing…”.

Oh, dean.

Deanie dean dean.

You wouldn't be trying to weasel out of your own claim that "the Republicans have been, since the 1960s, the preferred haven for racists, bigots, and apparently now neo Nazis," would you?

Since you're not a scientist, you can be forgiven for lacking the indispensable analytic lens that is falsificationism.

Long story short, whenever I read or write an assertion, I ask myself: under what conditions would this NOT be correct?

So when someone claims that a certain party in American politics is the preferred choice of racists, bigots, sexists, Wiener-flashers, gropy Presidents or whoever, I like to push in the opposite direction to see if it really stands up to the counterevidence.

(If you ever want to argue effectively, I recommend buying a book about, and then cultivating, the habit of falsificationist thinking until it becomes second nature to you.)

In this case I didn't even get a chance to push. The house of cards fell down as soon as I breathed on it.

The house of cards fell down as soon as I breathed on it.

Yes that breath of death on any thread you touch, the BK effect to add to that of DK. For all your 'cleverist' use of language it always comes to pass with disengagement by the other team and often removal of your comments in the interests of dealing with a mountain of inconsequential sophistry.

That is precisely why I refuse to engage further WRT John Cook and the manner in which you demeaned him a fact patently clear in the wording of your post where you carried out that act. I am not confused, if you are it is because you have blinded yourself with your own 'cleverness'.

Fini.

Lionel,

you'll have to forgive me for not getting into the spirit of the local stupidism. My momma brought me up on values like Better To Be A Smart-ass Than The Opposite, so blame her.

I'm not sure if you know this, but it was an accusation of blinding cleverness by BBD that launched my award-winning blogging career in the first place!

Although I'm disappointed by your inability to explain your own emotions about my characterization of Cook, I'm simultaneously reassured to have passed the ultimate fact-checking test. After all, Lionel, you've rarely shied (until now) from substantive critique, so I take your sudden coyness as the closest thing to proof positive that there are no objections to be made to the substance of what I wrote.

Yes, that was a compliment to you—and you've earned it.

Quibble, quibble, nitpick and quibble.

Colour me bored.

But just for fun, keep pretending that you don't know what is meant by 'climate change denier'. Then we can all laugh at your ignorance and point out that you've got some homework to do before you can join the adult conversation.

BBD,

But just for fun, keep pretending that you don’t know what is meant by ‘climate change denier’.

OH FOR FUCK*NGSHITSAKE, BBD.

How many fuck*ng times do you need it explained to you that I know exactly what the term means?

Colour you boring.

Just because the signifier has no referent, it doesn't follow that I'm in any doubt whatsoever as to what's signified!

Were you away the day they taught semiotics in primary school, BBD?

The unrelated and much Harder Question for 21st-century science—what the hell, if anything, does BBD mean by 'climate change denier' [this time]?—certainly stumps everyone except you, but that's because you've given us two (2) wildly dissimilar definitions so far without ever revealing to the world which one you reject and on what basis.

And all this reflects poorly on your language competence, BBD, not the rest of the world's.

There are uncontacted peoples in the Amazon who understand English better than you, for fucking Chr*st's s*ke.

BBD, you're in no position to tell me to

Quibble, quibble, nitpick and quibble.

No thanks.

At this point I'd rather focus on your psychosis involving the little green men who run around denying climate change.

Once you're well, taking your meds regularly and are given the all-clear to rejoin the community, then we can discuss your comparatively minor problems.

BK:

"You wanna handle this dictionary virgin, BBD, or shall I do the honors?"

This "dictionary virgin" was simply using the dictionary definition of dictionary:

"a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language;"

And of lexicographer:

"a writer, editor, or compiler of a dictionary."

Just because the signifier has no referent,

Only in the odd little world you inhabit. Everybody else knows what a climate change denier is.

that’s because you’ve given us two (2) wildly dissimilar definitions so far without ever revealing to the world which one you reject and on what basis.

Wildly dissimilar? No, that's not true at all.

BK @ x

[...troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, etc. ...]

Meh. There's a perfectly sensible definition at ScienceBlogs-- a whole blog on denialism:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/30/hello-to-scienceblogs/

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards/

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/category/denialism_defined/

Else DNFTT.

Is William Connolley a 'climate change denier' if he disagrees with IPCC report on sea ice, or makes a bet with other climate scientists on sea ice?

dhogaza,

let me simplify this for you. Here's your howler:

phrases aren’t defined in dictionaries but rather used as illustrative examples to help one understand the meaning and usage of a word being defined

At the risk of stating the obvious, your fantasy that dictionaries don't define phrases isn't contained in, or implied by, or derivable from your afore-pasted "dictionary definition of a dictionary," so blaming your error on Dictionary.com isn't fooling anyone.

Do you remember that practical joke from grade school, dhogaza, wherein you'd convince your mates that the word "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary, then watch the look on their faces when they double-checked that factoid?

"Gullible" was in the dictionary, obviously.

But "pommel horse," "Trojan horse," "dark horse" and "side horse" definitely aren't.

Why? Because they're phrases. And phrases aren’t defined in dictionaries; they're just used as illustrative examples to help you understand the meaning and usage of a word being defined.

No, really, it's true.

I know you don't believe me, and I don't blame you. But "dhogaza" told me. On the Internet.

That's the only reason you can't find an entry for such household phrases as "scientific consensus" and "climate change denier."

Sure, everybody knows these are important terms of art in their own right, with standard, well-understood senses beyond the sum of their single-word parts.

So lexicographers would love nothing better than to officially define "scientific consensus" and "climate change denier," if only to save the occasional naïve person from assuming they mean nothing more or less than "consensus of scientists" and "person who denies that the climate changes or is changing or can change."

Unfortunately, they can't. Not because they're actually bullshit, artless phrases meaning nothing more than "consensus of scientists" and "person who denies that the climate changes or is changing or can change," or anything like that. No. That's not why.

It's because dictionaries aren't allowed to define multi-word phrases, that's all.

So their hands are tied.

Dhogaza told me.

It’s because dictionaries aren’t allowed to define multi-word phrases, that’s all.

Hence #64.

Sigh.

BBD refuses to accept that this:

‘Climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic.

and this:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

are irreconcilably different claims about what 'climate change denial/denier' means.

He's going to persist in pretending everybody's on the same page about what such phrases mean, despite the fact that the 2 definitions he himself proffered aren't even compatible.

Really, folks. BBD's going to commit to this.

If you don't believe anyone could be such a glutton for self-beclownment, you don't know BBD. Grab some popcorn and watch.

Is further comment necessary?

BBD @ #89

I don't know which reading of your comment #89 would make you stupider:

1. you actually thought I was serious when I said dictionaries don't define phrases

OR

2. you actually thought I was right when I said dictionaries don't define phrases

I know we've had our differences, BBD, but please tell me none of the above is correct. Please tell me there's some third interpretation I hadn't thought of.

Please tell me I've just misunderstood your cryptically terse, overly laconic commentoid. (There's not much to go on, so that's entirely possible.)

Because even your stupidity has its limits.

Surely.

What a load of bollocks, Brad.

Me:

Everybody knows that 'climate change denial' refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard useage. You don't even have a point.

Wiki:

It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

The Wiki definition is more complete than the 'it's not us' one I provided. But it includes it entirely. So claiming that the two are 'wildly dissimilar' is to lie for rhetorical effect.

And all this reflects poorly on your language competence, BBD

No, it doesn't. Claiming that the phrase 'climate change denier' has no meaning reflects poorly on your linguistic competence. And lying for rhetorical effect doesn't reflect well on you in general.

Let's stop farting around and get something straight.

Your 'argument' rests on your claim that 'climate change denier' means someone who denies that climate changes. But that forced literalism is incorrect. The phrase is widely understood to mean:

[...] denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

So once again, you have imposed a narrow, personal and incorrect interpretation on something and insist that this constitites the basis of a valid argument. But it doesn't. This is the same basic fault that trips up your consensus crap.

Underneath all the prancing, ego-licking rhetoric, there's nothing.

The only real issue here is how long you are going to vex us all with your nonsense.

#91

Read harder.

BBD,

Your first attempt ('Wiki') claimed that a 'climate change denier' was someone who either denied or dismissed or had unwarranted doubts about or had contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on the extent to which AGW was A or the impacts of AGW on nature and human society or the potential of adaptation to AGW by human actions.

Your second definition ('Me') claimed that a 'climate change denier' was someone who denies the A in AGW.

Showing all the intellectual rigor we've become used to in spheres of society that begin with the word "Climate," you then decided to dismiss the glaring contradiction on the basis that...

wait for it....

the first definition "includes" the second one!

That's your alibi. It "includes" it.

You've had, what, a full day? To come up with an excuse? And that's the best you've got?

Be right back, popcorn's ready.

BBD,

Your ‘argument’ rests on your claim that ‘climate change denier’ means someone who denies that climate changes.

Well, since no dictionary in the English-speaking academic world sees fit to provide any other definition of the phrase, it's clearly not a term of art.

So I'm obviously right. Everyone grasps this but you.

It's the sum of its parts. No more, no less.

The phrase is widely understood to mean:

LOL.

"Widely."

So widely, only a Wiki page that some unqualified random cribbed from his copy of John 'Fake Expert' Cook's stool of a book "understands" it that way.

No offense, BBD, but when it comes down to your pseudonymous, evidence-free hand-waving versus the lexicography department of every University in the English-speaking world that has a lexicography department, I go with the expert consensus every time.

But hey, that's just me not being insane.

Read harder.

Write more intelligibly.

Or don't complain when I have no idea what you meant, and you can't shed any light on the matter either because you've forgotten what the hell you were trying to say.

Well, since no dictionary in the English-speaking academic world sees fit to provide any other definition of the phrase, it’s clearly not a term of art.

Here we go again. Only you think that 'climate change denier' has to be a 'term of art'. Nobody else does because it isn't a term of art.

Term of art; OED:

A word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession.

'Climate change denier' is an informal expression.

So as ever, your 'arguments' based on your narrow, personal and incorrect definitions invalidate at the first step.

the first definition “includes” the second one!

That’s your alibi. It “includes” it.

And is therefore, by definition, compatible with it. Not ‘wildly dissimilar’, 'irreconcilably different' or '[not] even compatible'.

Either you aren't the linguistic hot-shot you imagine yourself to be, or you are lying for rhetorical effect. Or possibly both.

BBD,

Just because I can't resist kicking a pseudonymous stranger when s/h/it is down:

Consider the sign 'deer.'

It means a hoofed grazing or browsing animal, of family Cervidae, having branched bony antlers that are shed annually and typically borne by the male only.

But in Elizabethan times, it didn't mean that.

It meant an animal.

But mice and rats and such small deer
Have been Tom's food for seven long year.

As you can see, the two definitions are wildly different.

Oops, no: I meant sane people can see that.

YOU can't see it.

You think

claiming that the two are ‘wildly dissimilar’ is to lie for rhetorical effect

You think the Shakespearean understanding of the word 'deer' is essentially the same as the one we use today, because...

wait for it....

it includes it entirely.

Well, that settles that!

It includes it entirely, folks!

Coming up tomorrow on Logic With BBD: Everyone Says Hiroshima Was An "Atrocity," So Let's Show A Bit Of Goddamned Gratitude To The Americans For Nuking It Off The Face Of The Earth!

BK:

"phrases aren’t defined in dictionaries"

Earlier BK:

"Words and phrases (including terms of art) are defined in dictionaries..."

This is too easy.

I never thought I'd say ...

"I'm missing Wow".

It’s the sum of its parts. No more, no less.

This from the chap who was wittering about signifiers and the signified?

Jeez.

:-)

actually I misread BK's intent, however, linguistically ...

"pommel horse" is a compound noun, not a phrase, and yes, you'll find compound nouns, but not phrases, defined in a dictionary.

So, dictionary includes "pommel horse" and "hard hat".

But, unlike this post, it doesn't include the phrase "go pound sand up your ..."

As you can see, the two definitions are wildly different.

Because they are separated in context by several centuries.

You can('t) do better than this.

BBD,

you don't even understand the 'deer' analogy, do you, BBD?

Apparently I didn't dumb it down enough.

Second time lucky:

The claim that 'deer' specifically signifies deer is not compatible with the claim that 'deer' can signify any animal at all.

Both claims CANNOT BE TRUE simultaneously.

IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE FUCKING IOTA how many centuries did or didn't elapse between the two definitions of 'deer.'

The point—the only point—is that one way of understanding the word "includes" the other (as you would put it), yet they're still wildly different (as I would put it), not "compatible" (as you would put it).

Capisce, paesan'?

‘Climate change denier’ is an informal expression.

Nitquibbling already, are we?

I suppose I should congratulate you. It usually takes you a couple of days to grasp that you've got no [non-picayune] arguments.

So it seems 'term of art' might connote a level of technical formality that doesn't really apply to demagogic, demotic hate-vocab like 'climate change denier.'

So sue me.

If you're aware of a better expression (than 'term of art') to abbreviate the concept 'phrase having a special meaning not obvious from that of its component words, thus warranting its own dictionary entry'—in other words, 'phrase whose whole is other than the sum of its parts'—then by all means, tell us something useful for once in your life:

What's le mot juste here, BBD?

(Unlike you and the rest of the ineducable 'climate change denier'-bandying choir, I'm actually open to vocabulary suggestions.)

Idiom.

For 'term of art,' read 'idiom.'

Next.

Another specious argument that fails at the first step. You need to read harder.

The claim that ‘deer’ specifically signifies deer is not compatible with the claim that ‘deer’ can signify any animal at all.

Both claims CANNOT BE TRUE simultaneously.

Only you argue - incorrectly - that they are.

Because they are separated in context by several centuries.

Read harder.

dhogaza,

But, unlike this post, it doesn’t include the phrase “go pound sand up your...”

That's not even a phrase.

It's an imperative clause (or decapitalized imperative sentence) with one word missing.

Trust me, dhogaza: nobody is scratching their head right now, wondering why dictionaries don't include sentences with one word missing.

And nobody is stupid enough to think that banality somehow implies the delusional proposition that dictionaries don't define phrases.

Need I remind you what a phrase is?

Ah, of course I need.

So I shall:

phrase
freɪz/
noun
noun: phrase; plural noun: phrases
1.
a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit, typically forming a component of a clause.

Trojan horse is an idiomatic phrase.

Dark horse is an idiomatic phrase.

Climate change denier is a phrase nobody deems idiomatic enough to bother including in a dictionary.

[g]o pound sand up your is a malformed fragment.

Arse.

BBD:

"Both claims CANNOT BE TRUE simultaneously."

Only you argue – incorrectly – that they are.

Waitwaitwait, this is hilarious....

So in your febrile mental cinema, BBD, I've argued not only that 'deer' signifies deer specifically, but also that 'deer' signifies any old animal, simultaneously?

Only you believe—incorrectly—that your febrile mental cinema is veridical.

Meanwhile, in the physical plane the rest of us cohabit, you've been trying to insist that Wiki's definition of C.C.D. and your own DIY attempt thereat can both be correct simultaneously.

That's what "compatible" means, BBD: capable of both being true simultaneously.

(Or were you unaware of the meaning of your own adjective when you wrote it?)

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Wildly wrong. So wrong, it usually takes centuries for a word's meaning to change so radically.

Your DIY definition of CCD : Wiki's definition of CCD
=
the 2017 definition of 'deer' : the 1590 definition of 'deer.'

BBD:

Read harder.

Why would I bother?

In my experience, your arguments barely repay skimming.

You're flattering yourself if you think I'm going to read them more than once.

Write competently, or don't.

dhogaza:

This is too easy.

Not for you, apparently:

actually I misread BK’s intent

Uh, yeah, we noticed.

This is too funny.

#102, I miss Wow,
Is that why you are emulating him in #101?

MikeN,

yeah, I also got the impression dhogaza was auditioning to be the next Wow. (Working title, Wow 2: zomg.)

Them's mighty small shoes to fill. Unless dhogaza is a 19th-century Chinese courtesan, I fear it'll be a tight fit.

Somebody has to do it, I suppose. (They say Nature abhors vacuity ever-so-slightly more than She abhors inanity.)

I don't believe it was Gandhi who said we should

"Be the Wow you wish to see in the world."

By the way, Greg, alleging white supremacy in the White House or anywhere else for that matter is semantically tantamount to claiming that whites are superior.

You must have meant white supremacism.

It's no biggie—certainly not on the self-detonating scale of Lewandowsky's inability to recall the difference between conspiratorial thinking, conspiracist thinking, conspiracy theories and conspiracies—a precocious form of dementia that leads the idiot to no end of unwittingly-funny non-witticisms.

But still, you might want to fix it.

What does ‘climate change denial’ mean? What is a ‘climate change denier’?

You people believe you know, but you don’t. You have no fucking clue.

High certitude + low clue = general hilarity.

(I know the answer, of course, but I’ll never tell. I’d rather use y’all’s ignorance to torment y’all than end it.)

BBD thinks he knows.
In face, not only is BBD convinced his interpretation is correct, he’s convinced that “everybody” shares it!:

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

Wikipedia has its own ideas:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

But BBD has a different definition—and he thinks everybody agrees with him!

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

Greenpeace has its own ideas:

We define climate change denial as “anyone who is obstructing, delaying or trying to derail policy steps that are in line with the scientific consensus that says we need to take rapid steps to decarbonize the economy.”

But BBD has a different definition—and he thinks everybody agrees with him!

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

Scientific American has its own ideas:

But it strikes me that my own perception of both groups is akin to Potter Stewart's famous take on pornography; I can't (and won't) always define them, but I can usually recognize bonafide cases, at least extreme ones. So for instance, in my dictionary Senator James Inhofe is squarely in the "denier" camp but Freeman Dyson is squarely in the "skeptic" camp....
But that's enough of what I think. What do readers think? Who in your opinion is a "skeptic" and who is a "denier”? … What we are looking for is a spectrum of opinion on definitions. Maybe something approaching a consensus will emerge from the comments or maybe opinion will be as diverse as species of beetles. In either case with enough commenters it should be interesting.

But BBD has a different definition—and he thinks everybody agrees with him!

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

THINKClima has its own ideas:

In this project, climate change denial is defined as the discourse that questions any of the basic premises of scientific consensus (that climate change exists, that its causes are human-driven, that it is the most important challenge facing humanity and that something can be done about it and we have the moral obligation to do it).

But BBD has a different definition—and he thinks everybody agrees with him!

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

The only question now is: is BBD a fact-dismisser, a reality-denier, a reality-denialist or a major-delusional-disorder-sufferer?

Your impressions in comments, please.

Sheesh! Another thread goes into the sand pile driven by BK.

An apposite theme tune for BK

In my last comment I proved that, even within the climate-activist world itself, there's a wide gamut of divergent guesses as to what the hell the phrase 'climate change denier/denial' actually means.

(I could have cited countless additional attempts at a definition, no two of them alike, but if the examples I gave didn't get the point across to you, dear reader, then your mental debility is beyond even my powers of healing.)

Ipso facto—contrary to the lie BBD perseverates in telling, like the broken wax cylinder he is—it's obviously not the case that "everybody knows" what 'climate change denier' and 'climate change denial' mean.

But that was like shooting dried herring in a barrel containing nothing but dried herring.

In the interests of a fairer fight, let's give BBD the benefit of a lavish handicap.

Let's test a much more limited claim that follows from the brazen fiction we've just demolished. We'll relieve BBD of the impossible (for him) task of defining what's being denied, and just focus on the question of what 'denial' itself entails.

Here's his answer:

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic a given scientific conclusion. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

But Andrew Winston, of Medium dot com, seems to think such a definition is too simplistic:

But defining denial as only outright denial of the basic science is a narrow definition indeed. Denial has evolved, and it’s even more dangerous now.

(As an aside, it's hard to tell what terrifies Winston more: putative CAGW or putative-CAGW deniers! What a fucking pussy.)

John Cook, a bona-fide fake expert if ever there was one, speaks his own dialect of English, in which the concept of 'science denial' comprises no less than five (5) criteria!

There are five characteristics of science denial. These common traits are seen when people reject climate science, the benefits of vaccination, or the research linking smoking to cancer. The techniques of denial are: fake experts; logical fallacies; impossible expectations; cherrypicking; and conspiracy theories.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but BBD didn't mention a single one of these defining properties, did he?

BBD's stab at the meaning of 'denial' scores 0 out of 5, if Cook is right. It'd be like defining 'deer' without mentioning that they're quadrupedal, antlered, hooved, grazing/browsing, or animals.

A risible showing in anyone's language, BBD.

Meanwhile, New Economic Perspectives defines 'soft denial' (in the article Living in the Web of Soft Climate Denial) as a kind of compartmentalization:

Soft climate denial takes a few different forms but it is remarkably easy to define: soft climate denial means that one acknowledges in some parts of one’s life that climate change is real, disastrous and happening now but in most other parts of one’s life, one ignores that anthropogenic global warming is, in fact, a real existential emergency and catastrophic. Soft climate denial can be practiced by individuals and groups alike, in fact, it is as much a group phenomenon as it is an individual defense mechanism.

(Whether NEP's definition of 'denial' simpliciter is equally idiosyncratic, or whether they even have one, we'll never know, because I wasn't interested enough to keep reading this piffle.)

Mark Hoofnagle, a climate surgeon who specializes in fatuity, seems to think denialism is a kind of debatalism:

First of all, we have to get some basic terms defined for all of our new readers.

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

Those diabolical denialists! Disagreeing in order to trick the public into thinking not everyone agrees!

Their side doesn't even need to beat our side in the debate, of course: they merely need to convince gullible passersby that there are two sides. Which there aren't! Damn their side!

Meanwhile, you may remember the day Naomi Oreskes put her foot in her mouth, then shot herself in her foot, by spraying the epithet 'denier' at fellow good guys. As a result we finally got to hear what they thought of the word, deep down.

Michael Specter, author of a book on skepticism called Denialism, was just one of the bien-pensant scientists and communicators who resented the taste of their own medicine, saying:

You don’t have to be a supporter of nuclear power to realize that words have meanings, and ‘denialism’ is not a synonym for disagreement. ... Rather, it implies willful, and often hateful, ignorance. Denialists are people who inhabit their fictions and run from the truth. They don’t believe there was a Holocaust or a final solution; they insist, despite indisputable molecular evidence, as well as the deaths of tens of millions of people, that AIDS is not caused by H.I.V. They are people who believe that angels are real and that evolution is false.

One can't help noticing BBD's failure to mention the vast majority of these traits of denial.

It's a familiar theme by now.

Finally, at Wikipedia (World's Leading Dictionary for Words That Aren't Good Enough For Real Dictionaries), the anonydefinition of 'denialism' almost sorta jibes with BBD's understanding of 'denial':

Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence[1]. "Denialist" is pejorative. In scientific contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (the Earth is not warming), the association between the two (CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is warming, but not because of the carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause-and-effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause-and-effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm). Often denialists practice minimization (the Earth is warming, but it's not harmful) and use misplaced skepticism to give an unwarranted veneer of scientific thinking.

So cheer up, BBD: there's one person on the Internet who more or less agrees with what you claim "everybody knows," at least when it comes to 1 out of 3 words.

Vindication!

Bernard,

thanks for the link—it's now on my iPod motivational playlist, the one I use to get pumped up before sallying forth on my high horse to wage war against the Alternative And Imaginary Energies "industry" that's disfigured our landscape with graveyard after graveyard of bird-blending Medieval monstrosities.

My friends call me crazy for thinking I can fight the sepulchral colossi. And sometimes, on bad days, it does feel a bit Quixotic.

Lionel,

that last message was for you, obviously, not Bernard. Oops.

Your civil tone must have confused me.

Blah, blah, blah.

Since you are pretending that your 'argument' hasn't been shredded, I've stopped reading your comments. What would be the point?

BBD,

you're a terrible bluffer. Your tone changes dramatically if, and only if, you know you've been discredited.

For instance, your sullen "Read harder" evasions—which are as far as possible from the prolix, paste-happy pomposity with which you pontificate when you still think you're in with a shot—are a dead giveaway that you've belatedly tweaked to your own fuckup.

You made the same blunder as dhogaza. What a shame you don't have the same integrity. :-(

I probably shouldn't have laughed out loud at his/her hubristic bungling, as hilarious as it was. At least Dhogaza had the reproductive maturity to acknowledge it. You're far too small and fragile to survive such an admission.

Remember that time you spent two days loudly, foul-mouthedly mangling the concept of 'conspiracist ideation' two or three years ago?

When the penny FINALLY dropped that you were using it wrong, you couldn't even admit it within earshot of me and GSW, could you? You had to flee to the sheltered workshop of a side thread, safe from my lidless, all-mocking eye, just to work up enough ugazzi to acknowledge your preceding 48 consecutive hours of utter cluelessness!

To this day I get a chuckle out of the memory of your flight to your Safe Place.

(Do your kids read scienceblogs or something? Is that why you're so desperate to save what's left of your face? Am I warm?)

Dhogaza, all is forgiven.

BBD is the risible one. Still. He hasn't grown an inch.

Your 'argument' is shite, Brad. And I rubbed your nose in it above. You can pretend all you like, but not only did it happen, the evidence is there for all to see.

As long as you continue to pretend that you didn't get shredded, you are on your own.

And you don't like that, do you?

If Keyes was a fire-hydrant and his words were water he could have put that California fire out all on his own.

The only ones promoting the Nazi link to climate change denial are climate change deniers. Odd.

Or not so odd as they are simply playing the victim card, which of course they would scream about if the shoe was on the other foot. Odd.

Or maybe not so odd as they really don't care about consistency, consider their whining about surface temperature data and 'adjustments' - yet the raw data shows a larger trend than the adjusted data. Odd.

Or maybe not so odd when you consider they're so keen to jump on any bandwagon that hints at conspiracy. Yes, it's a vast conspiracy by all those 'leftists' - despite the fact that BEST came out and arrived at the same result. And that any conspiracy would have to include so many tens of thousands of researchers, scientists, administrators, bureaucrats, and politicians; across dozens of countries and have existed for decades makes believers in the Illuminati look like conspiracy-theorist-toddlers. Odd.

Or maybe not so odd, but this game is boring, repetitive, and a waste of time. Pretty much the same adjectives I'd use describing a string of comments by BK.

How fucking dense are you, exactly, BBD?

In your brain, does the fact that I used "term of art" instead of "idiomatic phrase" for a while, before correcting my own wording and explaining what I'd meant by it, in near-pornographic detail, do anything—anything whatsofuckingever—to change the meaning or structure or validity or logic of my argument demonstrating your delusionality?

(In other words, does it do anything whatsofuckingever to rescue from the abortion bucket of history your idiotically careless, easily disproven claims that everyone knows what 'climate change denial' means?)

Are we really to take it that you're intellectually incapable of performing the mental susbstitution of "idiomatic phrase" for "term of art," as I retroactively gave you my blessing to do?

In other words, when I made this utterly conventional request:

For "term of art," please read "idiom."

...was that asking too much of your mental faculties?

If you were capable of performing that microscopic chore, like any other grownup, then why in heck's name are you bothering to link back to comment #98 as if you're honest-to-God stupid enough to believe it represents some kind of victory for your case?

IT. DOESN'T. YOU. FUCKING. BEEFWIT.

Then again, beggars can't be choosers, can they? And hey, that one pedantic objection you raised was the closest thing to an intelligent point you've made to me in this entire thread, isn't it?

I'd hate to be you.

Just in case the signifier friends of BBD has a non-zero number of referents, let me address the person or persons in the class 'friends of BBD' for a moment.

This comment and its sequel represent the sodomization, by chainsaw, of BBD's belief system.

As a matter of the decency owed between friends, please spare BBD's blushes by refraining from reading either of them.

This request obviously doesn't apply to normals and higher—only to the Morlock or Morlocks wretched enough to acknowledge BBD as a friend.

Bruce,

I misjudged you when we first corresponded. I won't repeat the error of replying flippantly or superficially if you give me a second chance.

You'll find I have all sorts of substances to talk about if you've got a few minutes to engage. The mindnumbingly jejune subject matter I've been sucked into litigating thus far is 150% a function of my interlocutor's poverty of mind. I'd much rather be arguing (or reasoning or just shooting the shit) with you. The chiaroscuro contrast between your conversation and BBD's couldn't be more Caravaggian.

Like I said, Dean, your full of shit! You think you can baffle everyone with bullshit because you have no brains! Your sophomoric attempts to verbalize a socialist position using deceptive examples and ad hominems exposes you as the real troll here. Your lack of real logic and brains shows that you cant argue with todays liberals (you) because they (you) have no brains and get lost in their (your) own rantings and writing skills.

I know you want to respond. You are frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. You cant stand it because you have such a pitiful, miserable life and want to make sure others are miserable too.

Well, Trump is still not racist based on your rantings. The Democrats are still the party of the KKK and Senator Byrd. The GOP is still the party of Lincoln, and that will never change that. Furthermore, you are still a miserable liberal troll, and your writing is atrocious.

Try some real research! Not liberal fiction which you are so fond of espousing here.

By the way, "Ripsaw" is a research term. You figure it out brainiac!

I have too much to do and dealing with a hurricane, too. I don't have time to waste on foolishness from you and others on here. When you have lived another thirty years, come back to discuss something intelligent! By the way! You are all still wrong! Nothing has changed.

Lionel,

having attained (for one brief, shining moment) the status of "Brad" in your eyes, I've subsequently watched in helpless anguish as you demoted me back to "BK" and ultimately "Keyes," the ground state whereat I first boarded this roller-coaster so long ago.

(I can't help but feel it was something I said.)

What can I do to redeem myself in your heart, and how can I avoid hemorrhaging your esteem all over again within five minutes of winning it back?

BK writes: "This comment and its sequel represent the sodomization, by chainsaw, of BBD’s belief system."

Actually, The wikipedia definition and the GreenPeace definition are both consistent with BBD's definition. Scientific American in the selection you quoted does not offer a definition - so is irrelevant. THINKClima is also consistent with BBD's definition.

The definition that BBD uses -- "refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic" -- can be simply reworded; 'refusal to believe the scientific consensus on GW,' because the scientific consensus *IS* that it is predominantly anthropogenic.

I'm not sure what type of semantic word-game you're trying to play, but it seems you're not playing it well - just making yourself look like an eedjiit.

#132

Thanks. It's amazing how different an honest person's parsing of my comments is from our newly resident nutter's 'interpretation' of language.

God but I'm weary of Brad. Years of this shit now.

Draw yourself a fucking Venn diagram if this is going over your head. Put a circle around the things Shakespeare would call ‘deer’ and put a circle around the things you would call ‘deer.’ Are they the same circle, Kevin?

That would be because of the several centuries separating us from Shakespeare and his context.

Contex', definition, OED:

The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

Language changes over time. Then is not now. Your argument is specious.

Again.

And the fire-hydrant cracks itself open again, but the water ain't fresh!

First of all, we have to get some basic terms defined for all of our new readers.

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

- Mark Hoofnagle.

Thank you Brad, for your demonstration.

When it comes to 'climate change denial', the core belief is that there is no problem to worry about. This can only be true if the A in AGW is either incorrect or a far smaller driver than is actually understood. In either case, the core belief informing 'climate change denial' is that we aren't really causing a problem so there's no need to do anything about it.

Therefore, I was correct to say that:

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

It's so simple and easy to understand, but only if you aren't nuts.

http://bfy.tw/DrWZ

This conversation is over, asshole.

Great. Now fuck off.

>the core belief is that there is no problem to worry about. This can only be true if the A in AGW is either incorrect or a far smaller driver than is actually understood.

If someone thinks AGW contributes 2C of warming, and natural warming is even more than this, do they think the A in AGW is incorrect? Or a far smaller driver than is actually understood?

If someone thinks there is a problem to worry about, but that it is AGW is a far smaller problem than actually understood, are they a climate change denier? This appears to be left out of your definition.

?

You said this conversation was over, so why are you still here?

Your 'arguments' have been debunked. Everybody's had more than enough of your rubbish. Fuck off.

If someone thinks there is a problem to worry about, but that it is AGW is a far smaller problem than actually understood, are they a climate change denier? This appears to be left out of your definition.

It's not 'left out' because there's nobody making that argument.

Catholic theologians

What do you call the sight of Keys in fool's garb giving a nun a piggy-back across a plowed field?

Virgin on the ridiculous.

BK - I said you're playing semantic games, but not playing it well.

Is Scientific American the authority now? Well, let's let them have the last word:

Climate Deniers, You're Climate Deniers--Deal with It

There's a game I play called "Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or just plain Evil?" Which are you?

And Brad the nutter continues to pretend his 'arguments' aren't embarrassing shite...

But we all know differently, don't we? And no matter how much self-serving twaddle he writes, he can't change that.

Which are you?

Do you read his stuff much? If so, see Bernard's #139.

BK tosses around the Scientific American quote as if it somehow supports his pointlessness. 1) The article is merely a blog post By Ashutosh Jogalekar on May 8, 2013. It's not an official SciAm statement nor should it be construed as meaning SciAm doesn't know what climate change denial means. And the author''s beliefs are consistent with BBDs definition.

Jogalekar writes:

"s far as I can tell there are three central premises of the science of climate change, stated in my opinion in increasing order of uncertainty:
1. The climate is warming.
2. This warming is unprecedented and is almost certainly because of human influence.
3. This unprecedented warming is going to do some very bad (or at least unpredictable) things.

To me it appears that almost nobody except the most rabid fundamentalist denier would have a problem with the first point. Personally I would also call someone who disagrees with the second point as at least leaning toward being a denier; to me there's really no other good explanation for the warming that we have seen except human activity.
The third point is where it gets more interesting. There are people who agree that humans are warming the planet, but then wonder about the exact details of the effects: How much will it exactly warm? Will it warm equally everywhere? And most importantly - and this is something Bjorn Lomborg has often asked - would the favorable effects of the warming outweigh the unfavorable ones? Many of these questions involve prediction and they ask if the science and art of climate change is predictive enough. I have to say that in most cases I place people who ask these kinds of questions in the "skeptic" camp, although there are sometimes exceptions. It's also not escaped my notice that the difference between denial and skepticism sometimes simply comes down to whether someone is just throwing around opinions or actually sweating the details."

BK's attempt to mislead us into thinking that SciAm doesn't know what denier means is rubbish.

BK - You quoted SciAm - not BBD. And 1) in assigning the quote to SciAm you pulled a bait & switch, because the quote is from a blog post from someone named Ashkutosh Jogalekar, not a SciAm position or statement. The correct citation for the quote is either Ashkutosh Jogalekar, or Ashkutosh Jogalekar writing in SciAm. Fail.

2) Your quotation was trying to make the point that SciAm (that we now know was really A.J.) doesn't know what climate change denial means; when the full post shows he thinks it means pretty much what BBD's definition was. Selective quotation much?

Pope Francis: "“Anyone who denies [climate change] should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly ... climate change is having an effect, and scientists are telling us which path to follow. And we have a responsibility — all of us. Everyone, great or small, has a moral responsibility ... we must take it seriously ... history will judge our decision.”"

It appears BBD has now infiltrated the Vatican - the conspiracy grows wider.

BK - writes:" You’re making things up. |Unfortunately, you’re not very good at it. The “tell” is that you don’t quote Jogalejar AT ALL, opting to put your own words in his mouth instead."

I quoted him extensively. Go back and read #151. So, are you either not paying attention or intentionally lying?

To rehash my comment 151, which BK lies about it and claims I never wrote, AJ wrote in his SciAm blog post

"1. The climate is warming.
2. This warming is unprecedented and is almost certainly
because of human influence.
3. This unprecedented warming is going to do some very bad
(or at least unpredictable) things."

Obviously A.J.'s view of a climate change denier then is someone who doesn't believe one of these 3 points. This makes his view consistent with BBD's, the Pope's, and virtually anyone that *isn't* a denier.

As another of BK's pointless semantic games, I wasn't even going to bother with his "magazines are inanimate objects incapable of opinionation or speech, and that “SciAm thinks…” was a standard metonymy for: “a human being who writes for SciAm thinks…” This his excuse for trying to pass of A.J. as SciAm.

Sorry, that's another FAIL.

An organization can take an official position, usually a statement issued by it's board and *that* we attribute to the organization. I.e., the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Physical Society (APS),and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and hundreds of other organizations around the globe have official statements on global warming. Only a con-man would try to pass off the writings of a single member, or an article or letter found in one of these organizations publications, as the belief of the organization.

This is especially true of magazines and newspapers where articles, letters, even news stories often contradict each other - sometimes in the same issue. For these types of organizations we usually cite the editorial board's statements as the official position of the organization (e.g., candidate endorsements in newspapers).

He admits he DOESN’T KNOW how to define the term.

No he doesn't. More lies.

(The word “always” needs to be ignored

Only by you, because it contradicts your lies.

Read harder, Brad. Let me help you:

I can’t (and won’t) always define them, but I can usually recognize bonafide cases, at least extreme ones.

So you are as full of bullshit as you were yesterday.

And as wrong.

His persistence in asserting a proven falsehood tells you all you need to know about his character.

The mirror, Brad. The mirror.

There are many, but this is a straighforward version:

http://vistriai.com/psychopathtest/

Look for the Hare checklist and others will pop up. With what can be gleaned just from his behaviour here, and even by omitting questions that require further understanding, the resident troll scores close to the psychopathy threshold, and over it if one uses the UK research limit.

And because there will be inevitable histrionics, I'm in the bottom 1% of the Gaussian distribution. That's the sensitive petal end of the scale, in case there's any obfuscation.

L503 at the ready.

BK -In my first comment on the Subject of SciAm I said that SciAm does NOT offer a definition of climate change and that your quotation claiming they admitted so was wrong.

Let us revisit that claim: do you stand by it?

Or should it be reworded: Some guy named Ashkutosh Jogalekar writing a blog post on the SciAm site first gives us A) a definition of climate change, then tells us B)he can't define climate change denial.

One might ask A.J. if, logically, B is not simply the negation of A.

The mirror, Brad. The mirror.

He stands looking into it repeating:

"Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand"

2. WITHOUT knowing how to define “climate change denial.”

He doesn't say he CAN'T define CCD.

Read harder.

Or stop lying.

BBD,

You really ought to stop expressing your beliefs. They're reliably wrong.

He doesn’t say he CAN’T define CCD.

Sigh.

That's precisely what AJ concedes—and if Kevin doesn't understand this point, I'll be happy to go over the reasoning again.

The fact that you don't understand it, BBD, is neither surprising nor important.

What makes you think I'm referring to you BK?

That’s precisely what AJ concedes

No it isn't.

Stop lying.

Brad Keyes, you're setting up a whole suit of presumptions, fallacious inferences, straw men, and sundry other logical fallacies - but you well know that. It's your thing. It's what you do. The game, the amusement, the way it is.

Let's be honest. You don't care about manners, beyond how commenting on it provides an avenue to manipulate the concept - and others - to your own advantage. And me having empathy for fellow humans, living both now and in the future, and for the non-human species on the planet, doesn't mean that I accept antisocial or dangerous behaviours or actions or necessarily respond to them with passivity. You're just looking for another lever for your sport. Best to move along.

I know that I'm not going to alter the way you think. I know that no one here will, beyond reinforcing the camouflage and gambits that you use to manipulate others. And guess what? I don't care that you're not going to change. Oh, not in the pathological sense of not caring, but in the cut-the-losses and greater-good senses.

What's more important is flagging your behaviour for others to see and appreciate, if not understand (after all, it's nigh on impossible to have neurotypicals understand the lack of empathy at the extreme end of the PD spectrum, just as it's probably even more difficult to achieve the converse). It's not actually that difficult to contextualise your underlying purpose if one stops and considers your overall record of behaviour on the internet: you've left inordinate amounts of words telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're wrong, stupid, ignorant, deluded, or otherwise beneath your own apparent ability to perceive correctness of fact. And yet you never actually build a referenced, empirical, fact-based case. You not demonstrated that climate change is not occurring in the manner that the best science has indicated, and you've not demonstrated that it won't be as bad for a cohesive complex society or a rich global biodiversity/ecology as the science indicates.

There's a greater pattern of failure of logic and of pressing a defensible case once the rags of your gotchas are cut away. A shell, a shadow, a ghost of an actual suit. AS is often the case in the thimblerigging of your ilk.

You're just a tar baby. You amuse yourself with poking the ants' nest and getting the ants to run frantically at your disturbance of the equilibrium. Again, fine, that's what you do, just as the scorpion does its own thing. I have no idea of the why behind it, and attempting to do so would be a thankless task, but frankly it matters little to me - you're just the person who happens to be filling that niche at this particular time. All I'm doing is pulling the curtain aside so that others understand that you're just a little Oz who uses endless argument instead of smoke and mirrors.

That's what interests me, and if I help a few people to understand your absolute refractoriness to real engagement, then that's a tick on the card.

For the interested, these are a few of the links that I've come across over the last few years, located in response to sitiuations where I've had to deal with PD individuals in the lives of family and friends:

http://www.psychopathicwritings.com/2011/04/do-psychopaths-know-theyre-…

https://www.quora.com/If-Im-a-psychopath-sociopath-will-I-ever-know-or-…

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-so-important-to-never-let-a-sociopath-k…

https://www.quora.com/Would-a-psychopath-ever-admit-to-being-a-psychopa…

Such people vary from the irritatingly painful to the outright dangerous, as the current situation of someone close to me is proving.

You can make your own minds up about the troll here, and I hasten to add that it's only ever going to be your own personal impressions*, but in the end we all will know what the evidence suggests. Read some of the narratives in the links above, and you'll find yourselves uncannily reminded of someone...

[*If you happen to have a friend or several in the profession it can be most enlightening, but without a formal diagnosis it's always caveat emptor.]

I hope you're getting this, Greg.

Because without action, 'Brad' will poison your comments section for ever and ever and ever.

BK - You're avoiding the issue. You said that "Scientific American" has different ideas.

In response I said that SciAm did NOT offer a definition, and was irrelevant. You then claimed: "Scientific American in the selection I quoted says it is doesn’t know how to offer a definition – so it is fatally relevant to BBD’s confabulation:.

Scientific American made no such claim. Some random blogger did. Or do you stand by your claim that it was SciAm?

Kevin O'Neill, Mann in his book talks about how calling climate scientists Nazis was particularly hurtful to one scientists who lost family in the Holocaust. So clearly he understands the significance of using 'denier'.

The revealed preference of the world's people, looking at migration patterns is that they would like to live under white supremacy. We see minorities from Africa and Asia going to Europe, and even then the whiter parts of Europe, just passing thru the olive skinned Italy and Greece en route to Germany(don't they read history?), Finland, Denmark, etc.

The only exception I can think of is Mexico. If you look at their presidents and cabinet
https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/press/main_image/33512/post_epn_gabinete…
you find a very white government, yet people keep leaving for America.
Central America does try and move to Mexico though.

MikeN - #163. Are you serious? Doesn't poverty -> wealth explain it better? Or even instability to stability? And categorizing European countries as "white supremacy" is probably news to them. Which European country has a policy of white supremacy?

MikeN - #162 is relevant to what? Calling someone a Nazi is not the same has calling someone a scientific denier. The only people that make that link are climate change deniers when they want to play the victim card.

Kevin O'Neill, Brad Keyes's distinction matters here- supremacy vs supremacism. I haven't checked, but I think you have whites running all of these European countries.

> Doesn’t poverty -> wealth explain it better?
Sure. And it inevitably ends up being towards countries with white supremacy. Though some of this is because other wealthy countries won't let people in as easily.

MikeN, you're using the noun to confabulate the adjectives. That's a very crude exercise in logical fallacy.

MikeN - words mean things:

white su·prem·a·cy
noun
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society

BK is NOT a source you should trust.

ONeill and BJ,

When MikeN happens to be right and Greg happens to be wrong, your absolute and invariant religious duty to disagree with MikeN and agree with Greg requires you to make yourselves preposterous.

In this case, you've committed yourselves to the farcical insistence that 'supremacy' means 'belief in supremacy.'

Recursive fury indeed.

Thank you for the laughs.

if you think 'supremacy' refers to a belief, you don't speak English.

If you need to 'trust' a 'source' to figure out what common English words mean, you don't speak English.

Since your religion obliges you to pretend you can't speak English, let me pretend to teach you by citing the Collins English DICTIONARY.

supremacy |so͞oˈpreməsē|:

noun
the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status: the supremacy of the king.

supremacist |so͞oˈpreməsəst|

noun
an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex: a white supremacist.
adjective
relating to or advocating supremacy of a particular group.
DERIVATIVES
supremacism |-ˌsizəm|
noun

Yes, but in fairness to Kevin, he cited the dictionary.com definition of 'white supremacy'. M-w only gives white supremacist and not white supremacy.

Nevertheless, the people of the world have revealed a preference of living in countries run by whites, even if they are not white. Whites wanting to live in countries run by other races is relatively nonexistent.

MikeN,

Culture, not alpha-melanocyte expression, is what makes countries great or poor. I don't know where you're going with this luminosity theory, and I don't know why.

I came here to talk about culture, which includes language, not the fraction of incident light absorbed or reflected by human body surfaces. Kevin and Greg and Bernard are wrong about words. They're ignorant to treat the -ism suffix as optional. They're dishonest to keep doing so even after their ignorance has been corrected by Keys and yourself. But I'd expect no better from people in their sociological situation.

That is all.

God. What a profoundly tone deaf, stupid, racist, arrogant, narcissistic statement! Tell you what MikeN. Why don't you go live in Russia. It's a pity that we can't send you back in time to Nazi Germany where you belong. Or perhaps you can go live in the state of Florida, a part of the world renowned for its long necked white governor. Running a state barely above sea level while pretending that sea level is not rising or storms are not getting stronger is such a profoundly white way of governing, eh Mikey?

Or was your meaning that you simply don't consider non-whites to be people?

Either way, your thinking is xenophobic and idiotic. In addition to that, your word choice is clumsy. Maybe you should go back to Macedonian troll school for a refresher on using English. Or maybe take some cultural anthropology courses instead of going around buying tiki torches.

"Sady Berkeyley"

Fuck off with the sock Brad

Yes culture, including government institutions implemented by that culture, are what makes countries great or poor. Right now that is for the most part cultures in countries that were dominated by whites, particularly those that adopted the British legal system.

SteveP, nice rant, but is there anything I wrote you wish to dispute, or you just unhappy with reality? Would you prefer if non-whites didn't want to go to countries run by whites? O

Brad Keyes:

ONeill and BJ,

When MikeN happens to be right and Greg happens to be wrong, your absolute and invariant religious duty to disagree with MikeN and agree with Greg requires you to make yourselves preposterous

Except that MikeN is not correct.

I stand my my assertion - in the matter of climate change denialism and Holocaust denialism MikeN (along with countless other useful idiots) is claiming the noun 'denialism' is inherently tied to the adjective ( in this case) 'Holocaust'. It's not. Denialism can be of many adjectival stripes, and that is the whole point of having both nouns and adjectives.

Oh, I know that the climate change denial movement has worked strenuously to fabricate the link between denialism in general inextricable with the Holocaust specifically, purely for the propaganda value, but that's a specious connection. Climate change denial is a Thing. Holocaust denial is a thing. Some climate change deniers are also Holocaust denier, and some aren't, just as some Holocaust deniers are also climate change deniers, and some aren't.

Use the adjectives as appropriate, and don't mendaciously tar the noun for ideological purposes.

And cease* with twisting other people's words. All it does is add to the evidence that trolls rely on lies and logical fallacy to push their political barrows.

[*I know full-well that BK cannot and will not, because it's in his very DNA, but it serves a purpose to record that he's been told and that he blithely ignores objectivity in order to futher his own ends.]

MikeN

I think you are confusing the appeal of stability with race. Perhaps consider the history of Caucasian immigration to the US as an example of why our resident nutter has fooled you.

BJ,

When MikeN pointed out the fact that

Brad Keyes’s distinction matters here- supremacy vs supremacism.

you wrote, in the immediately subsequent comment:

MikeN, you’re using the noun to confabulate the adjectives. That’s a very crude exercise in logical fallacy.

Your objection was, of course, phrased nonsensically, since there was no adjective involved in the dispute to begin with. Nevertheless, under the least nonsensical reading of your comment, you were denying (rather inarticulately) the fact that supremacy and supremacism are two different things.

Thank you for belatedly disambiguating your clear-as-mud comment.

However, nobody owes you an apology for having failed to divine that you were talking about 'denial[ism]' and 'Holocaust denial[ism].'

The etiology of your verbal confusion becomes obvious when you write things like,

I stand my my assertion... MikeN (along with countless other useful idiots) is claiming the noun ‘denialism’ is inherently tied to the adjective ( in this case) ‘Holocaust’. It’s not. Denialism can be of many adjectival stripes, and that is the whole point of having both nouns and adjectives.

I love to break it to you, BJ, but 'Holocaust' is not an adjective.

'White' is usually an adjective. 'Supremacist' is sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a noun.

But 'Holocaust' is a noun.

We all know your mental reflex will be to deny this—but before you succumb to the urge to disagree with me out loud, ask yourself if it's likely to end well for you.

Now, I'll deal with the point you were apparently struggling to convey all along. Let's debunk what you meant, not what you said, shall we?

You're correct in (only) one sense:

English has a diverse smorgasbord of two-word nominal phrases of the form 'X denial'; therefore, if the 'X' is omitted, it can't be assumed that X = 'Holocaust.'

This, IIRC, is why Richard Lindzen recommended that climate kaffirs simply reappropriate the word 'denier,' and do so with pride.

If more deniers had followed Lindzen's advice, the present, tedious lexical haggling could have been obviated.

Nevertheless, it is historically-illiterate to suggest that deniers themselves ever had to go out of their way to 'link' the idea of the Shoah to the noun 'denial' (in order to confect outrage at the 'denier' label).

The link was already present in the minds of the skeptophobic activists who initially agreed on a concerted effort to normalize the uses of 'denier,' 'climate denier' and 'climate change denier' in the context of the dispute about future temperatures.

I know this, not because I'm psychic, but because they repeatedly explained this. In writing. On the internet.

Your refusal to concede facts that can be verified by anyone with Internet access does not make you seem mentally healthy.

The 'Holocaust' connotations were still present in the minds of the skeptophobic denier-smeller pursuivants years later, when that moron Oreskes subjected her own ideological allies to friendly fire by calling them '[energy] deniers.'

I know this, not because I'm psychic, but because I have Internet access. In fact one of the many proofs of this was quoted upthread:

You don’t have to be a supporter of nuclear power to realize that words have meanings, and ‘denialism’ is not a synonym for disagreement. … Rather, it implies willful, and often hateful, ignorance.

Denialists are people who inhabit their fictions and run from the truth. They don’t believe there was a Holocaust or a final solution; they insist, despite indisputable molecular evidence, as well as the deaths of tens of millions of people, that AIDS is not caused by H.I.V. They are people who believe that angels are real and that evolution is false.

(That was Michael Specter, the writer of [climate] Denialism, having a tantrum when Naomi accused him of denializing whatever ideological 'fact' she was then spruiking as regards energy policy.)

Finally, you have every right to request this...

And cease* with twisting other people’s words.

...but in reply one must ask:

Why, and how would anyone "twist" your words, BJ, when they're already contorted beyond recognition by your own grammar malfunctions?

As a reminder, it is now your religious obligation to disagree with this fact until you're blue in the face:

The word 'Holocaust' is a noun....

...always. You Holocaust nominality denier!

Hmmm, I think that some of the worst has been cleaned up, a la Mr Kaplan...

>Caucasian immigration to the US

Caucasians went to US and not governments run by non-whites, so I don't see how that matters. Are you referring to the earlier large influx of Caucasians to the US when it was not run by whites?

I think BK and his sock-puppet Sady Berkeley need to read harder. The OP never uses the word 'supremacy', but it is in the title to the OP. The OP uses the phrase 'a white supremacist's strategy' once. So, let's examine these instances:

OP Title: "[The link between Russia and {White Supremacy} in the White House]" 'White Supremacy' is an idea, an assertion, that whites are superior to other races. By simple substitution we can rewrite the title as: [The link between Russia and {the idea that whites are superior to other races} in the White House]. Any problem? None that I can see.

OP text: "[The other is the consistent “vehement antipathy towards immigrants”, clearly part of a {white supremacist's strategy], with respect ....]" 'a white supremacist's strategy' is equivalent to the strategy of a person that believes whites are superior to other races. Again, substitution gives us: [The other is the consistent “vehement antipathy towards immigrants”, clearly part of {the strategy of a person that believes whites are superior to other races.}, with respect ....] And once again the statement is consistent in both meaning and intent.

The only difference between white supremacy and white supremacist is that one is the idea and the other is the person that believes in the idea. I think where BK went wrong was misreading the title as [The link between Russia] [and White Supremacy in the White House] . Given the notorious nature of article titles, this is a possible reading, but it is not borne out by the text. Instead the title should be read as [The link between Russia and White Supremacy] [in the White House] .which is borne out by the text and presents no problems.

Kevin I don't see how changing either to supremacism makes a difference compared with BK's definition of supremacy(which I used).

MikeN - ?? You wrote:

"Kevin O’Neill, Brad Keyes’s distinction matters here- supremacy vs supremacism. I haven’t checked, but I think you have whites running all of these European countries."

BK draws a distinction that *he* says makes the OP wrong. His distinction is wrong. The OP title and text are both correct in their usage of the terms.

You endorsed BK's distinction. You're foolish for doing so.

MikeN

white supremacy - idea that white's are superior to other races
white supremacism - theory based on the idea of white supremacy
white supremacist - person who believes in white supremacy

What you and BK want us to believe is that a country that has white politicians leading it is a state of white supremacy. I'm not even sure what logical failure this falls under - but it is a logical failure. I might buy that in some cases they're in a *de facto* state of white supremacy, but even that is rather rare.

South Africa did not officially claim that whites were superior to blacks, but South Africa under apartheid was a de facto white supremacy state.

>You endorsed BK’s distinction. You’re foolish for doing so.

That distinction, while wrong, was important for my post. I should have worded it more carefully about a preference for countries with white leaders.

What I don't follow is how the distinction makes any difference in

[The link between Russia] [and White Supremacy in the White House] . or [The link between Russia and White Supremacy] [in the White House]

to make BK's wrong definition post dependent on which way you read Greg's post.

I was with you when you posted the dictionary definition, but I don't get #181.

MikeN - [White Supremacy in the White House] implies that a state of white supremacy actually exists in the White House; that in the White House whites are superior to other races.

Unless you believe this to be true it would be more precise to say [White Supremacism in the White House]; the theory or belief exists in the White House without actually accepting white supremacy as fact.

KON,

What you and BK want us to believe is that a country that has white politicians leading it is a state of white supremacy.

Sigh.

What "BK" urged GL, KON, BBD, BJ et al. to believe is that white supremacy doesn't exist, because whites are NOT better, or more deserving of power, than oranges, half-blacks, celestials, Dravidians, latinos, latinas, sons of Shem, sons of Ham, or people of any other skin color, skull shape or ethnicity.

White supremacism, on the other hand, is an objective and lamentable reality.

See, for example, BBD's reaction ("Fuck off") to my explanation that alpha-melanocyte expression is NOT what makes a society great or poor, and that what matters is not race but culture ("Fuck off"). See also BBD's reaction when I admitted I'd come here to talk about culture ("Fuck off"), NOT the fraction of incident light absorbed or reflected by human body surfaces ("Fuck off").

Tut, tut, "BBD." White privilege much?

Are you a sock for a Klan Grand Dragon by any chance? Are you Trump using a nom de blogue?

Finally, from the very little I know or care about race, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that Caucasoids, like Aryans, are more numerous in India than in any other country.

"KON,"

I think we cross-posted. Thanks for this excellent, lucid elaboration of "BK's" objection to "GL's" title:

it would be more precise to say [White Supremacism in the White House]; the theory or belief exists in the White House without actually accepting white supremacy as fact.

I wonder why "GL" still hasn't corrected the name of this web page.

KON,

you still don't seem to understand the suffix "-ism" in English.

white supremacy – idea that white’s are superior to other races

No.

White supremacy is not an idea. It is a (putative and fictional) state of superiority belonging (putatively and fictionally) to people of a particular level of skin luminosity.

People can have a belief in white supremacy, but that doesn't make white supremacy a belief.

White SUPREMACISM is a belief. White SUPREMACY is what white supremacists believe in.

BK, Kevin is quoting a dictionary definition. Wikipedia holds acy and ism to be the same.

>Caucasoids, like Aryans, are more numerous in India

I thought BBD meant this when he spoke of Caucasian migration.

India has swastikas everywhere, and was known for white supremacism, feeling which persists to this day, though only within the range of common Indian skin tones(the original Aryans who believed in white supremacy bred carefully and still some very white people can be found today).
Perhaps this is why Trump hosted Modi at the White House.

"MN,"

you tell "BK" that

Kevin is quoting a dictionary definition. Wikipedia holds acy and ism to be the same.

Yet KON never told us what dictionary he was quoting. If it really exists, and is not simply a figment of KON's desire to pseudo-authorize himself, it contains a mistake.

What every English speaker—and the Collins Dictionary, which I cited in comment #169—agrees on is that supremacy is the state of being supreme or superior or the best thing since white bread, whereas supremacism is the belief therein.

Think conspiracy versus conspiracism.

Think climate catastrophe versus climate catastrophism. (The latter is the [delusional] belief in the former.)

Granted, English is a bit more nuanced (read: confusing, contradictory, fucked up) than I might appear to be presenting it here.

For one thing, supremacy might conceivably refer to dominance or rule, with or without deserving to dominate or rule.

So as someone (you or KON, I think) pointed out above, South Africa under apartheid might be said to have been in a state of white supremacy, in the sense that people with highly-reflectant dermal tissue had all the political power, without necessarily being better human beings than any other demographic.

But it still makes no sense to allege white supremacy in today's White House, unless we also believe the White House was in a state of black supremacy (or technically: half-black supremacy) under Barack Obama.

MikeN,

a swastika in India has no racist meaning or intention, at least if it was carved or inscribed prior to the 1930s, as the great majority of swastikas were.

To quote Wikipedia:

The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक), and denotes a "conducive to well being or auspicious".[11][8] In Hinduism, the clockwise symbol is called swastika symbolizing surya (sun) and prosperity, while the counterclockwise symbol is called sauvastika symbolizing night or tantric aspects of Kali.[8] In Jainism, a swastika is the symbol for Suparshvanatha – the 7th of 24 Tirthankaras (spiritual teachers and saviours), while in Buddhism it symbolizes the auspicious footprints of the Buddha.[8][12][13]

This is not to deny the very real history of Aryan or "white" supremacism in India, a prejudice the British were quick to exploit as a strategy in their division-and-conquest of the country.

I merely point out that the Nazis were the ones who imbued the swastika with a racist connotation alien to the symbol's proper use in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist tradition.

MN,

I thought BBD meant this when he spoke of Caucasian migration.

Hmmm.

(I'm using the hmmm of skepticism.)

You seem to be reading a more sophisticated and historically-literate meaning into BBD's comment. And I guess it's possible there was more to BBD's words than meets the eye.

Theoretically.

But having read some of his back-catalog of inanities, the overwhelming impression one gets is that there's much less to them than meets the eye.

MN,

Wikipedia holds acy and ism to be the same.

Then [the uncredentialled random who typed that page of] Wikipedia is wrong.

Which would come as no surprise to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of convenience. It is not, repeat NOT, a dictionary, and many of its would-be rewritings of the English lexicon are tainted beyond redemption by the politics of the random, uncredentialled bloggers who type them.

"KON,"

you ask my fellow German resident "BK":

Scientific American made no such claim. Some random blogger did. Or do you stand by your claim that it was SciAm?

Obviously you fail to comprehend the argument leading to that point.

Nobody thinks magazines can have opinions.

It was copiously, repeatedly explained to you that the quote from [a random blogger employed to write things in] SciAm explodes BBD's falsehoods, not because it represents the "official position" of a series of sheets of paper or pixels on a blog, but because the author in question—initials: AJ—was a human being, and ipso facto a data point that falsifies BBD's lies:

everyone knows what ‘climate change denial’ means.... Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

AJ may be of Indian heritage, but that doesn't invalidate his humanity or his [mis]understanding of a term BBD falsely insists is universally understood.

Since BBD was lying and 'climate change denial'—a fundamental part of believalists' ontology of society—can't even be coherently defined by the very people whose Weltanschauung depends on its being real, your believalist co-religionists stand revealed as mush-brained neomysticists.

Still lying long after multiple debunks AND running a sock.

Not good, Brad.

Ye badly reeks explains the nasty smell now attached to this thread.

...a particular level of skin luminosity...

Levels of luminosity? Perhaps you mean 'absorbance/reflectance spectra'? Different beasties entirely to luminosity.

Fundamental category fail. You understand light physics as well as you understand climate change physics and ecology. Which is to say, not at all.

English is a bit more nuanced... than I might appear to be presenting it here.

Indeed. And you yourself are the victim of an inadequate capacity to use it in a scientific context, for exactly the reason that you've just made, which renders all of your waffle less than worthy for even wiping an arse.

It must be a stone in your shoe to have blundered about (again) thusly.

#174 "Yes culture, including government institutions implemented by that culture, are what makes countries great or poor. Right now that is for the most part cultures in countries that were dominated by whites, particularly those that adopted the British legal system."
Get fucked.
Having a system of law is all very good if one actually follows it,
Fucking poms are the most hypocritical mob ever. And still wont own up to it. They seriously lack moral fibre as a culture.
Thou shall not steal , arsehole pommie cunts.
Heres Kev singing about it

https://youtu.be/L6fem7-ucxg

When ya gunna reconcile your past poms?
When ya gunna stop making and selling WMDs poms?
Great culture my arse. I say this as someone whos massivly attracted to those distant islands. The stone fences. Hillmans and Series one Landrovers. Joan Armatrading. Agatha Christy. Brunel. Darwin . Even the Zionist Orde Wingate holds appeal, and few Zionists do, for reasons i wont go into.
Thanks for the language, which enabled Conrad.
No thanks at all for being massivly hypocritical cunts.

Whats the fucking point in having a racial discrimination act if it gets suspended? Whats the fucking point of trying to even call yaself a fucking culture if children are detained when they have commited no crime.
My daughter isnt even allowed to marry anyone she might choose to.
Thanks poms for your great systems of governance and law.
Nice how our ruler is also a religuous
Real good stuff.

Damnit. Stupid phone.
.... Nice how our political ruler is also a religious leader.
No fucking conflict of interest there sunshine.

Li D

Fucking poms are the most hypocritical mob ever. And still wont own up to it.

If you own up to it, it's not hypocrisy any more. But as a Pom, I have to agree that hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the political classes. This may be a universal truth however.

A big +1 on Conrad, but Orde Wingate? Um.

BK and his sock-puppet SB apparently can't Google: white supremacy

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/white-supremacy
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/white_supremacy
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white%20supremacy

Virtually *every* dicitionary supports the definition that w.s. is an idea or belief.

So, when the twins write:"White supremacy is not an idea." They're wrong.

Note another Bait and Switch on the part of the BK/SB twins. The definition offered by BK was for 'supremacy' -- not 'white supremacy'.

#203 I thought Wingates tactical ideas were very clever.
Hes a genius compared to a fuckwit like Churchill.

BJ, ROFL!

You understand color theory about as well as [insert rest of babyish insult]. In said theory, the HSL color space distinguishes white and black by a difference in exactly one coordinate.

Hint: it's not the H coordinate. It's not the S coordinate.

If you had understood this, or even played around with the color picker on your computer, you'd have understood that "skin luminosity" was a deliberately non-physical, jocular reference to the equally non-physical notion that people have "white" or "black" skin.

Then again, trying to read a "fundamental category fail" into a joke is exactly the kind of gaffe we'd expect a humorless cultist to make.

The funny thing is how funny your un-funniness is.

Perhaps we've all been wrong about you the whole time BJ. Perhaps you're actually a comic genius in (very, very good) disguise.

Why did you choose to bowdlerize this quote, I wonder:

English is a bit more nuanced (read: confusing, contradictory, fucked up) than I might appear to be presenting it here.

Cutting out my rephrasing of 'nuanced' was dishonest. But then, you're a cultist.

Indeed. And you yourself are the victim of an inadequate capacity to use it in a scientific context, for exactly the reason that you’ve just made

What reason have I just "made", and what does that even mean?

In any case, English in a scientific context is not meant to be used in a nuanced (read: confusing, contradictory, fucked up) way.

But I suppose you and your coreligionists can't help the confusing, contradictory, fucked up language you use on scientific subjects, can you?

After all, language is the dress of thought.

And once again, when 'Brad' fucks up, he pretends he didn't fuck up and as usual, everybody laughs.

Ah yes, Conrad. Did he not write a novel concerning the very thing that BK/SB miss-describes, maybe a sequel could be entitled 'The Dark Heart of Brad Keyes'.

And Churchill was very 'clever' with language rewriting history to his own advantage. This from a perspective of studying much early twentieth century history especially on naval matters. Chrurchill's WW2 era midnight, brandy fuelled, follies are well known but his treatment of naval officers probably less so:

Churchill wielded the executioner's axe so indiscriminately, and with so little attempt to ascertain whether his intended victims really were incompetent, that the injustices perpetrated were not few.

Captain Stephen Roskill 'Churchill and the Admirals' pp 278.

Jocularity, huh? Right.

You really hate being cornered, don't you BK? Have your own conversations with yourself - I don't care. You may think that you're clothed in clever words, but your naked motivation is clear to see.

It's enough that I know what you are. That everyone reading these threads knows what you are. I just hope that you're not one of those people who vents on those physically around him.

Speaking of jokes you appear to have missed the pun that I threw at you a few days ago, which doubled as a demonstration. I rather tumbled about in mirth myself at that, and I suspect that the point sailed right over your head.

By the way, the planet's still warming, and it's going to be bad for many people and species. Just in case you missed the memo.

And once again, when "BBD" fucks up, he hallucinates about the fuckups of ancient enemies and as usual, everybody is sad, because mental illness is no laughing matter.

What was it Mark Hoofnagle had to say about denialism again? Oh yes, it was this:

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

KON:

Nobody who knows what the suffix "-ism" means in English would need to Google the meanings of common terms like "white supremacism" and "white supremacy."

But that you feel such a need is exactly what I'd expect of a cult member, for whom, after all, independent thought is unthinkable, and all "knowledge" comes from revelation by authority.

Virtually *every* dicitionary supports the definition that w.s. is an idea or belief.

Then virtually *every* dictionary is misleading you.

Oxford actually defines "white supremacism" correctly, despite defining "white supremacy" wrongly:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white_supremacism

white supremacism
noun

The doctrine that white people are superior to other peoples, and should therefore have greater power, authority, or status; advocacy or practice of such a doctrine

Geddit now?

White supremacism is the belief in, or doctrine of, white supremacy.

White supremacy (which isn't real) is what white supremacists (who are real, and wrong) believe is real.

From the title of this post, however, it would appear Greg believes white supremacy is real. UrbanDictionary says of people like Greg:

Although the white race has a long and impressive list of accomplishments, whites who believe in white supremacy typically engage in the logical fallacy of assuming that they, as individuals, somehow share in these accomplishments because they share the same skin color or ancestry.

This is one of the dictionaries you cited, KON. Hardly supportive of your odd views, is it?

Of course, I'm kidding about one thing: I'm sure Greg doesn't actually believe in white supremacy—his post title was hopefully just a mistake.

But a mistake becomes a fuckup when you refuse to correct it, as JFK said.

O'Neill,

I know this is like asking a fish to stop swimming, but try to think for yourself for ten goddamn seconds.

If you think 'white supremacy' means 'the belief in white supremacy,' you're engaged in the recursively-furious disappearance down your own alimentary canal, like Lionel's beloved ouroboros.

You may as well define "GNU" as "GNU's Not Unix" or "KON" as "KON, son Of Neill."

In other words, you're havin a larf.

Do racism, lynchings, segregation and slavery seem like laughing matters to you, KON?

Of course not. Only slavery. The rest would be a case of "too soon."

OK, KON, you can stop thinking for yourself now.

That is all.

What was it Mark Hoofnagle had to say about denialism again? Oh yes, it was something entirely unrelated to, and inconsistent with, [all of] BBD's definition[s].

Quelle surprise.

KON,

I know you're capable of figuring out the meanings of words, because you did it earlier (before backflipping to your original state of wrongness). So perhaps you only have one foot inside the church door, after all.

Remember the O'Neill who pointed out that:

[White Supremacy in the White House] implies that a state of white supremacy actually exists in the White House; that in the White House whites are superior to other races.

Unless you believe this to be true it would be more precise to say [White Supremacism in the White House]; the theory or belief exists in the White House without actually accepting white supremacy as fact.

I know that person isn't dead. There is still good inside you.

Have the courage to be that O'Neill again.

All it takes is a third—and final—backflip.

Li A,

when did "BK/I" mis-describe one man's journey by boat into the commercial heart of African white supremacism?

Li D,

which Australian leader is "also a religious leader"?

And does it cause him to quote the Bible ("thou shalt not steal") as much as you?

Yes, thank Yawheh for English, which enabled a Russian entomologist to become the greatest novelist in hominid history. Like Conrad, he used English as a Second Language better than most participants in this thread speak their own mother tongue.

What was it Mark Hoofnagle had to say about denialism again? Oh yes, it was something entirely unrelated to, and inconsistent with, [all of] BBD’s definition[s].

Quelle surprise.

Mark Hoofnagle was talking about denialism which is why I put it in bold - to help with your reading comprehension issues.

It didn't work.

My definition was correct.

Climate change deniers peddle the claim that there is no problem to worry about and no need to take action. This requires the A in AGW either to be incorrect or a far smaller driver than is actually understood. In either case, I was correct to say that:

Everybody knows that ‘climate change denial’ refers to the refusal to admit that modern warming is predominantly anthropogenic. The phrase is well established in standard usage.

You should learn to read harder, or people will take you for an idiot.

And Brad - only you here seem incapable of recognising the difference between the essence of climate change denial and the various techniques by which it is peddled by its adherents, such as yourself.

As I keep on saying, read harder.

BJ,

I took those psychopathy tests you linked to earlier. They were no challenge. Trivially easy to game. Not one of them detected that I was just pretending to be a top-percentile psychopath.

rfYes, I'm saying I beat you by 98%. Sorry mate.

My other criticism would be that they had too few questions about me and too much tedious filler about other people and how my actions make them feel.

So the congenital liar Brad is still playing the "words only mean what I say they mean" crap, and is as vile as always.
The only thing to say is that he is consistent in his dishonesty.

BBD,

if you're now claiming a distinction between what denialists and deniers do, you're the stopped clock of believalism. There is a distinction, of course—but that doesn't stop most of your coreligionists from using the terms interchangeably.

Yet another falsification, to add to the long and growing list, of your "everybody understands" lie.

>if it was carved or inscribed prior to the 1930s, as the great majority of swastikas were.

I doubt this is true. Swastikas are incorporated into designs of buildings and temples, so I would expect the vast majority have been produced since 1930s.
Hitler adopted the swastika with its militaristic meaning- it's the design of a fort. I think it is likely he latched onto the Aryan racism as well.

Brad

Yet another falsification,

Balls.

My definition was correct.

Funny that you seem unable to admit that.

Makes you a dishonest shitbag.

if you’re now claiming a distinction between what denialists and deniers do,

NO.

Read harder.

Fuckwit.

Greg

How much longer?

BBD,

if you’re now claiming a distinction between denialism and denial, you’re the stopped clock of believalism. There is a distinction, of course—but that doesn’t stop most of your coreligionists from using the terms interchangeably.

Yet another falsification, to add to the long and growing list, of your “everybody understands” lie.

I don't blame you for begging Greg to silence me, as you probably did with my fellow German resident before me.

If you were humiliating me on an hourly basis, I'd do the same to you.

The BK/SB twins still don't grok the English language. "White supremacy' is a compound, uncountable, abstract noun. Here the important adjective is 'abstract.' Abstract nouns refer to concepts, ideas, philosophies, and other entities that cannot be concretely perceived.

Once way back upon a time I mentioned that BK just liked to play semantic games, but doesn't play them very well. QED.

O'Neill,

your "arguments" are getting increasingly desperate.

Here the important adjective is ‘abstract.’ Abstract nouns refer to concepts, ideas, philosophies, and other entities that cannot be concretely perceived.

Everyone knows I know what an abstract noun is, dimwit.

Hint: if 'white supremacy' is abstract, so is 'supremacy.' It doesn't change the truth, much as you'd like it to. And the truth is:

supremacy |so͞oˈpreməsē|:

noun
the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status: the supremacy of the king.

supremacist |so͞oˈpreməsəst|

noun
an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex: a white supremacist.
adjective
relating to or advocating supremacy of a particular group.
DERIVATIVES
supremacism |-ˌsizəm|
noun

A word of general advice:

If you have to choose (and you do), it's better to be right than to be consistent.

So be a dear and backflip back to RealityLand:

[White Supremacy in the White House] implies that a state of white supremacy actually exists in the White House; that in the White House whites are superior to other races.

Unless you believe this to be true it would be more precise to say [White Supremacism in the White House]; the theory or belief exists in the White House without actually accepting white supremacy as fact.

Well, Kevin, #181 is looking a little more clear after BK's posts, as he uses white supremacy in the white house when you say the proper split is Russia and white supremacy, in the white house.

What is 'uncountable'. This is like the real numbers. Did you mean indivisible?

If you don't moderate, liars take over.

I will have nothing more to do with this.

MikeN - if you can add a plural to it, the noun is countable, if you can't it's uncountqable.
book --> books
white supremacy --> white supremacies??

BK/SB the noun is "white supremacy," not "supremacy"

Get with the program.

BK - I pointed out that your reading is NOT supported by the text of the OP. Funny how you walked off and put your sock puppet in place to avoid admitting you were wrong - AGAIN.

I've already pointed out your B&S regarding 'white supremacy' and 'supremacy' - please quit offering up definitions of nouns not under discussion.

BK needs to go back and read #181.

"The only difference between white supremacy and white supremacist is that one is the idea and the other is the person that believes in the idea. I think where BK went wrong was misreading the title as [The link between Russia] [and White Supremacy in the White House] . Given the notorious nature of article titles, this is a possible reading, but it is not borne out by the text. Instead the title should be read as [The link between Russia and White Supremacy] [in the White House] .which is borne out by the text and presents no problems.

O'Neill,

"BK" didn't "walk off."

My information is that BBD got him banned, way back before BBD came up with the far smarter (and more lie-reducing) strategy of self-flouncification.

You seem to think "white supremacy" is an idiom. Yet its meaning is perfectly derivable from that of its component words, white and supremacy. There's therefore zero justification for a special definition—and it's disappointing to see reputable dictionaries so enthralled to political correctness that they feel the need to include one.

When the movie Bourne Supremacy came out, did you run for the dictionary?

Sorry, that was a rhetorical question. Of course you did.

By the way, I read the title as [The link [between [[Russia] and [White Supremacy in the White House]]]].

I didn't bother reading the post beyond the inept phrase "clear through lines" (why should I?), but I'm pretty sure Greg doesn't think Russia is in the White House, whereas it seems more plausible that he would [mistakenly] claim there was white supremacy in the White House.

The reading you suspect me of ([The link between Russia] [and White Supremacy in the White House]) is not—as you claim—a "possible reading," since, among other things, the preposition between has to be followed by two nouns connected by and (or by a plural noun).

Just to prevent misreading, wilful or willless:

The preposition 'between' is normally followed by EITHER
1. two nouns connected by 'and'
OR
2. a plural noun

"The link between Russia" is therefore not even a phrase.

Couldn't you have done Ma Daisy Berkeley or Sadie May Berkley?

[The link [between [[Russia] and [White Supremacy in the White House]]]].

How about

[The link [between [[Russia] and [White Supremacy]]] in the White House].
which is what Kevin is suggesting.

Kevin, how is uncountable different from abstract?

Dear all (or as Lionel calls you: ye reeks),

Let's take a moment to silently remember BBD, a childish and dishonest runner-to-teacher to whom I once supplied

yet another falsification, to add to the long and growing list, of your “everybody understands” lie.

In uncharacteristic fashion, BBD actually quoted my words (which he attributed to "Brad")!

Predictably enough, however, he only quoted three of them and attempted to thrust his own ones in my mouth:

[SB:] "Yet another falsification,"

Balls.

My definition was correct.

Funny that you seem unable to admit that.

Makes you a dishonest shitbag.

Let us all note that "my definition was correct" is utterly unresponsive, except to a straw man of BBD's own confabulation.

Funny that he was unable to defend the thing that was actually falsified, namely his "everybody understands" lie.

And by "funny," I mean "sadly typical."

Farewell, Big Bag o'Dishonesty. Thanks for fighting semantic pollution by pissing off.

MikeN,

How about

[The link [between [[Russia] and [White Supremacy]]] in the White House].
which is what Kevin is suggesting.

So in other words: in the White house, there is a link between Russia and white supremacy?

If that means that in the White House, there is a conceptual link between [the concept of] Russia and [the concept of] white supremacy, then that's perfectly fine.

Russia exists, but white supremacy doesn't, since whites are not the supreme race.

Nevertheless, it's perfectly conceivable for a President to believe in both of them.

It would be far more logical for Trump to believe in the fictional concept of orange supremacy, but even if Greg is suggesting he subscribes to the fictional concept of white supremacy instead, Greg himself is not necessarily suggesting that whites are supreme.

And under that reading, the title is therefore A-OK.

If anyone in this thread had simply argued the above, instead of obstinately pretending white supremacy was a real phenomenon in today's America, I would've agreed with them and withdrawn my objection to the title.

That is what Kevin argued at the end of #181. I didn't understand it then, but your responses have clarified it.

MN,

I doubt this is true. Swastikas are incorporated into designs of buildings and temples, so I would expect the vast majority have been produced since 1930s.

No, I expect not.

The average temple in India is old. And in India, old means old. It doesn't mean younger than 87.

Everyone should travel there at least once. It's an eye-opener.

But remember, people, never purchase a one-way ticket. To cancel out your carbon emissions, always insist on a return flight.

The only ethical air miles are net-zero air miles.

Couldn’t you have done Ma Daisy Berkeley or Sadie May Berkley?

I guess, but that's not my name.

I do wish people here would live by the values and ethics my countryman stood for (and for which he was silenced, censored and banned) by addressing each other politely.

For instance I would much prefer to live in a world where you called me Sady, and I called you Mike. That is your name, isn't it, Mike?

Mike,

I'm glad to have decrypted KON's comments, for you at least. They still seem waffly and vague to me, but then, believalist prose is never as interesting as ours. If KON was agreeing with my view (#240), then he was of course right, and should be commended.

Mike,

Uncountable nouns, sometimes called partitive nouns, don't have to be abstract.

Milk is an example. You can see it, touch it and drink it. But you can't drink "a milk" and you can't drink "five milks"—you can only drink some milk, no milk, a glass of milk, less or more milk, etc.

>The average temple in India is old. And in India, old means old. It doesn’t mean younger than 87.

I'm sure they have lots of very very old temples, including one large one that is believed to have not been built, the mountain was like that with the carvings to begin with.
However, I would bet most temples have been built more recently.
It is not like a cross on a church, swastikas are built into designs of many buildings, not just temples.

MikeN - there are many abstract nouns that can be pluralized; e.g.,talent, weakness, strength, friendship ... and many that cannot; e.g., clarity, brilliance, patience, courage.

KON,

genuine inquiry: shouldn't pluralizability be considered separately from countability?

After all, if you can have one of a thing (an indomitable courage, a certain brilliance, a clarity that comes only from years of training under the serenest swamis money can buy), doesn't that alone put it ahead of (say) milk, a substance that can't come in any number at all, even 1?

SB - I didn't coin the terminology. It's just part of the lexicon of English grammar. I think of it this way; books are countable because you can have more than one. I.e., they're pluralizable. 'Courage' and 'milk' OTOH; indomitable courages,(?) carton of milks (?) -- they're both uncountable/unpluralizable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "put it ahead of." There's no ranking, just description.

#217 her not " him ". The queen is a her.
#231 I agree. Fuck i hate endless trolling cunts.
The internet is anonymous. People can be whoever tbey want to be. And some people consciously choose to be fuckwits.
Its quite bizarre. Why doncha choose not to be a fuckwit mr nuremburg or whatever your stupid name is.

Oh and #217. Its not the bible its the Torah. Strangly enough some christian types seemed to have nicked it. In an astonishing
case of irony.

Dear all (or as Lionel calls you: ye reeks)

Which is a dishonest deformation of my intent, your stink rises higher.

BBD actually quoted my words (which he attributed to “Brad”)!

Another stinker, why should not BBD attribute words by SB (you) as coming from Brad [Keyes] for you are one and the same? A slithy tove that doth gyre and gimble in the wabe. (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Kevin,

I’m not sure what you mean by “put it ahead of.” There’s no ranking, just description.

Sorry, I meant "put it ahead in the countability stakes."

In other words, courage may not be pluralizable, but there can be "a courage," whereas there can't even be "a milk."

So courage is "singularizable" [THAT'S JUST A FLIPPANT NEOLOGISM, BERNARD, SO KEEP YOUR PANTIES UNTWISTED], as it were, which "milk" is not, so the former is "countable," in a sense (as long as you don't want to count higher than 1).

It's a fairly trivial point so don't worry if I didn't shed copious photons on it.

Li D,

Oh and #217. Its not the bible its the Torah. Strangly enough some christian types seemed to have nicked it. In an astonishing
case of irony.

That certainly is some serious chutzpah, no doubt about it.

It reminds me of the habit Christians have had since the Middle Ages of swearing oaths on various things, but typically on a copy of the Bible itself, despite the crystal-clear Biblical commandment against swearing an oath on anything. Let your yea be a yea and your nay be a nay.

What next, Muslims using Korans as beer coasters? Hindus beating cows to death with rolled-up Bhagavad Gitas?

The internet is anonymous.

For some, maybe.

People can be whoever tbey want to be. And some people consciously choose to be fuckwits. Its quite bizarre. Why doncha choose not to be a fuckwit mr nuremburg or whatever your stupid name is.

Does my name seem like "mr nuremburg" to you, Li? Why, because it's Sady or because I come from Klimanürnberg?

What would I have to do to "not be a fuckwit": pretend to agree with the various falsehoods I've debunked in this thread so far?

Er, no thanks. If you want me to voluntarily delude myself (which I probably couldn't do even if I wanted), then it sounds to me like your idea of "not to be a fuckwit" involves significant fuckwittery.

Or have I misunderstood you? Do you object to the manner in which I champion the truth? Am I too mean to your falsehood-espousing friends? Am I... gasp!... rude to them??

Well I deserve a spanking then. What an endless trolling cunt I've been. I do apologize for my lack of impeccably Victorian manners, ladies and gentlecunts.

I'm so sorry that you feel yourself "ruled" by Her Maj, the Head of the Church of England. Is it oppressive? Nothing that can't be fixed by adopting healthier cognitive habits and more optimistic ways of looking at partially-full glasses, I hope.

#231 I agree. Fuck i hate endless trolling cunts.

So you agree with BBD's unwillingness to associate with this thread any further?? That's a shame. You were good company—not nearly as cunty in your trollage as Boring Boring Domini Canis. Ah well, even the most endless trolling cunts must troll to an end in the end, I suppose.

Trivially easy to game.

My admonitions about professional guidance aside, that you feel the necessity to lie to yourself reflects the fact that the only person that you fool is yourself.

In so many ways Brad Keys you're 'not right'.

We're all watching you astonished that you are hell-bent on spending hours upon hours reinforcing this, again and again and again.

SB - I'm not sure I buy the singularizable argument. Is there 'a courage' ? I cannot think of a sentence offhand where that works. It requires an adjective as in your earlier examples.

While 'courage' and 'milk' are both uncountable, if we're categorizing nouns they are still distinct in that 'courage' is abstract and 'milk' concrete.

BTW, just because a noun lacks physical existence does not make it an abstraction. Imaginary creatures are considered concrete nouns even though they don't actually exist. Seasons, OTOH, are abstractions. Unicorns are concrete, but winter is an abstraction.

He was not a man given to wine, or cards, or racing, as some are, and he was not so very handsome; but he had a courage and a will of his own, if ever man had.

#255 and #256

I'm in awe of both of you!

I mean, I'm in awe of each of you.

(Or awes of both.)

Kevin,

BTW, just because a noun lacks physical existence does not make it an abstraction. Imaginary creatures are considered concrete nouns even though they don’t actually exist.

So the compound noun 'climate change denier,' a signifier without a referent, is nevertheless concrete.

Got it ;-)

BTW, I reckon it's safe to use each other's given names now that the toxic element has recused itself from the conversation. Isn't it pleasant!

MikeN - nice!

Looking around I also found this from Emerson's essay 'Courage':

There is a courage of the cabinet as well as a courage of the field; a courage of manners in private assemblies, and another in public assemblies; a courage which enables one man to speak masterly to a hostile company, whilst another man who can easily face a cannon’s mouth dares not open his own….There is a courage of a merchant in dealing with his trade,….There is a courage in the treatment of every art by a master,…."

I think the explanation lies in the changed meaning of the word in the 1800s versus today.

Kevin,

My impression is that modern "courage" has something to do with possessing the balls or ovaries to speak power to truth. Is that the semantic shift you had in mind?

Emerson could have given his essay a catchier title: 'Courages.'

Nothing sells like a hapax legomenon.

The burning question is whether there is a milk of human kindness; a buttery milk expressed by mothers to newborn babes; an ivory milk of perennial wetnurses; a milk of the poppy; and a diversity of soy products marketed as milks.

Strange.

Now that we're being friendly, we all seem to have lost all interest. Das Thread ist dead.

Maybe there's a reason God made THREAD an anagram of HATRED.

Come back, BBD, you ugly hatemonger! All is forgiven