Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 31. (Read 80461 times)

What exactly is it that you are claiming is such a strategy?

But way of explaining, I don't recall any nations toppled by environmentalism or feminism, truly hateable and worthy of pity though such movements may be.

Uh huh. A right-wing news site found some stupid undergrads willing to play up to its image of feminism and is trying to make a story out of it?

When an event is not news no one will comment on it, asking and writing about how the event itself is even news. It would just simply be ignored.

It is news because the politically motivated group made a big deal about making sure a lot of people would know about it, thus making their act becoming news. I believe this action would logically be defined as news, even if "small news"...

So you mean a politically-motivated group is gathering together to edit Wikipedia?  Horrors!  Surely this has never happened before!  And if it had, I certainly would never have been personally involved on one side of warring editing factions.

How is this even news?

Hmmm.... radical feminism on a massive scale can lead to...... mental disorder?

At the risk of starting a fight with my new best friend... What in your opinion is the difference between feminism and radical feminism?

Drafting a post on the climate stuff.

Well, that sounds pretty hateable....

A group of Columbia University and Barnard College alumni filmed a feminist pornographic film in the school’s Butler Library to fight what they see as “gender tension” at Columbia.

The NSFW film, titled “Initiatiøn,” was filmed as a feminist statement exploring “the rituals of American Ivy League secret societies, to the point of hysteria, highlighting our culture’s perception of female desire,” according to an article published on Gawker.

It begins with a group of girls sitting around a library table taking their shirts off. As the film progresses, the girls engage in activities including kissing, rubbing eggs on their bodies and twerking around chicken carcass.

One of the film’s creators, Columbia art and history major Coco Young, told the IvyGate blog that the library itself represented sexism at the school because only male author’s names are on the facade of the building.

http://gawker.com/some-nude-college-girls-filmed-a-feminist-porno-in-colu-1515084075

I don't mind wiki turning pink and reading about Adolf being a cross dresser so to be more in touch with his feminine side. As long as the editing is not secret, open, with people's agenda known.
The true enemy of feminism: menopause.


"It is well known only left-wing news sites tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth"

                                                                                                 _Soros' Media Matters_

Feminist groups at more than a dozen universities are planning to participate in another mass “edit Wikipedia day,” because the free, volunteer encyclopedia website is obviously horribly sexist.

Sarah Stierch, a Wikipedia contributor and researcher for the Wikimedia Foundation, said the problem isn’t just that most Wikipedia user are male. The layout of the website is itself “very masculine,” she said.

“It’s aesthetically very masculine in its design,” said Stierch in a statement to The Daily Dot, also noting that, “The average Wikipedia editor is a well-educated white male. Well-educated white males have been writing history and the story of the world since ancient times.”

To fix this, feminists at colleges around the country are launching another ‘Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon.’ Next week, feminists are encouraged to change rewrite the online encyclopedia to make it less masculine, according to Campus Reform.

The event is a follow-up to last year’s similar edit-a-thon, when feminist sympathizers were called to edit “feminist thought” into Wikipedia articles.

“It’s not like my life passion to make Wikipedia feminist, but it’s been really surprising, there’s this whole underground world that I wasn’t aware of of people who are dedicated to editing Wikipedia,” said Krystal South, an event organizer, in a statement to Bitch Magazine. “The beauty of Wikipedia is it’s a public institution, people have the ability to go change it.”

The University of Texas, University of Iowa, Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison are some of the participating institutions.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/02/wikipedia-is-very-masculine-so-feminists-pledge-to-fix-it/

Fractivist barred from oil company’s lands said parents should engage their children sexually




Environmentalists are rallying to the defense of an anti-fracking activist who has advocated pedophilia and incest after a Pennsylvania court barred her from entering any land owned or leased by a local oil company.

Cabot Oil and Gas won a temporary injunction this week prohibiting Vera Scroggins, director of the anti-fracking group Citizens for Clean Water, from setting foot on any portion of the 200,000 acres of land for which Cabot holds leases.

Environmentalists quickly rushed to Scroggins’ defense.

“How can this be legal???” exclaimed Gasland director and anti-fracking activist Josh Fox. Anti-fracking group 350.org called the decision “surreal.”

“My new heroine is called Vera Scroggins,” one environmental activist declared. “Go Vera!” cheered another.

In addition to her work combatting fracking, an innovative oil and gas technique that experts say is an economic game-changer for the United States and could help ensure energy independence, Scroggins is also an advocate of incest and pedophilia.

Scroggins expressed her desire for parents to engage their children sexually at a young age in a series of messages in 2001 posted to an online message board called Peacelist.

“Are there cultures that mothers or fathers pleasure their children and teenagers sexually or genitally and also possibly initiate them into sexual expression at some point?” she asked.

“I have had intuitive thoughts that such would be a healthy way for parents to interact with their children and introduce their children to sensual/sexual pleasure and bonding and loving practices.”

“Who better to do it, than the parents first?” she wrote.

http://freebeacon.com/environmentalists-defend-pedophilia-advocate/

Actually I don't think the problems are with the chart.   It is just a bit of badly worked science to be discussed.  

The problems are with the ways that people reacted to valid scientific criticisms of the chart and it's methods, feeling seemingly obliged to defend it.

It's counter productive to defend wrong, even if you are an environmentalist that sincerely wants to save the planet.  Maybe especially in that case.  

Anyway the new IPCC report is considerably less alarmist than the Mann hockey stick.  But alarmists will continue to reach into the past and select the most alarming bits of "science" to support their claims.  The new report cannot ignore that the recent 15-17 years of cooling and/or stable temperatures clearly show that climate sensitivity is considerably lower than it was possible to claim in the past.

More importantly, we should all take note that simply extrapolating the last couple decades apparent trendline does not work and has no predictive value.

Ok, I accept the "religion" being referred to was specifically an imitation of the "redemption through guilt" meme prevalent in Catholicism among others. I assumed that anon was referring to the "faith in claims which cannot be justified by evidence" aspect, which they clearly weren't. I retract my hasty judgement of daftitude with apologies 

also good points i forgot to mention. sooo much funny business with this chart.

My main contention was your implication that all serious environmentalists are either part of a "religion" (a term which to me specifically implies rejection of observations in favour of faith in a particular result) or are profiting from the credulity of those who are. It seems we agree on many points as you say.

Re. the global temperature trend, I would refer you to the following, from Mann, Hughes et al:



Which indicates a clear warming trend beginning in the late 19th century (coinciding with the peak of the industrial revolution) that dwarfs fluctuations over a similar time-frame in at least the last millennium. The study is widely considered to be robust, with careful consideration of the limitations of various techniques commonly used. I presume you know that a great wealth of studies have found similar results, so I would ask why you disagree?

Ah, the famous Mann hockey stick chart.  The one that ignores the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.  The one that hinges on a couple of tree ring bores to prop itself up.

The one that ignores tree rings past a moment of choosing (~1960s).

Using flawed statistical methodology by which random data, plugged in, will generate an identical hockey stick.

I dont find this graph very convincing. Why does it only use tree rings when there are so many more reliable methods available like coral samples and ice cores? Another scientist provided such a graph with a broader data collection methods for submission in the exact same ipcc report which did not show this dramatic hockey stick. Why was the more dramatic graph utilizing less data chosen over the one that was less dramatic with more data? I mean its not like climate scientists would stand to benefit from the public being alarmed by climate statistics or anything, so we know its not that /sarcasm. Why does dr mann suddenly switch to thermometer data as soon as it becomes available? Sure its more accurate data but in order to have an objective comparison you cant simply switch data collection methods half way through the chart. It reeks of lysenkoism.

Of course i could be wrong. In which case its worth pointing out that the benefits of warming would likely outweigh the costs. Presently there is more land rendered uninhabitable due to extreme cold than extreme heat.

*note* i know you didnt claim that the government should attempt to solve this problem. i wanted to point that out so that i dont get accused of strawmaning.

And even if its not the case that we would be made better off from global warming there is still this very strong argument against spending any significant amounts of money on fighting it because it would almost certainly be cheaper to address the issues as they arrive. All we have to do is get the government out of the insurance business and the risk of building on areas which were in danger of being effected by rising sea levels would be priced into the market over night. This would incentive people to move out of flood prone areas long before the flooding became a problem. Additionally erecting man made barricades around cities would almost certainly be cheaper than the net costs of carbon taxes or carbon credit schemes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

Its a very complicated issue which is very hard to discover the truth on because there are many perverse incentives at work here mostly resulting from the extent that governments stand to gain from convincing the public of the reality of this mother of all market failure problems. Maybe its real maybe it isnt but it surely isn't as simple as "hey look at my hockey stick, discussion over".

Radical feminism is a failed idea. They tried it in Sweden and the end results are for everyone to see. The Swedish males are no longer masculine. And their places has been taken by immigrant Somalis and Arabs, who already constitute 20% of the population. And once they get the majority, guess who will be their prime targets.... the same radfems who brought them to Sweden.... 

I think this is probably correct.

Your "new religion" theory is daft though. Our environmental impact on the planet is beyond question at this point - it's easy to observe that (e.g.) forest and woodland areas are being rapidly reduced, and animal and plant species are going extinct at a faster rate than at any other time we know of since the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period.

I don't doubt that there are people who feel very guilty about this as you say. I don't particularly (all these species only got to live in the first place because the Cretaceous extinction did happen, circle of life etc.) but it is happening.

More important than our "impact on the planet" are the negative effects of these changes on us. Deforestation has been shown to destabilise the water table for example, and increases the risk of floods. A diverse set of species in a region keeps land rich, fertile and beautiful. The global warming trend is causing sea levels to rise and the climates of coastal regions to change, again increasing the risk of flooding and making agriculture difficult. All these problems have nothing to do with a species-wide Mea Culpa, but with our long term prosperity.

No, it isn't daft.  Even though regional environmental impacts can be shown which support many of your assertions, it's beyond question that some have made something of a religion out of it. 

I think it's a gross exaggeration to go anywhere near a claim that environmentalists, and even extreme environmentalists, are part and parcel of this "new religion" per se. 

But certainly a fair number of them are.