Is Irma as fake as The Donald? | |||
| Yes. | 23 | 23.00% | |
| No. | 21 | 21.00% | |
| Donald's fake, Irma isn't. | 56 | 56.00% | |
| Total: | 100 | ||
| spurgeonryan said: Well they got huge ratings and we waited and waited and waited and then got mild flooding. Weather people do not care about reputation anymore, just money. |
You got mild flooding. My company has distribution centers in it wasn't mild for them. Irma was more than twice the size of Andrew and more powerful.
9/11 was fake, Katrina was fake, the 2008 crisis is fake. Yeah, when something crappy happens you must expect this sort of responses, and you must also act as if at least 95% of them were people trying to troll hard.
My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.
| Hiku said: It's correlated to climate change deniers in the right wing. Because both Irma and the hurricane before it were the biggest hurricanes ever recorded to hit their regions. People who believe things like this are dangerously stupid. To themselves, and to the rest of us. |
Rush broadcasts from West Palm Beach, Florida, not Miami.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/05/my-analysis-of-the-hurricane-irma-panic/
Hiku said:
That's fine and all, but the fact that I mixed up Miami with another part of Florida is irrelevant as long as the threat of the hurrican applied to where Rush was broadcasting from. And it did. There was a warning for West Keys residents, and there was damager caused by the hurricane, police rescues, etc. Furthermore, Rush can try to claim innocence all he wants, but unfortunately for him we have ears. We can hear what he said for ourselves. And he said that media are exaggerating the threat of hurricanes to get people to buy supplies. First he says that 97% of the scientific community (who Al Gore cites) are wrong about man made climate change causing hurricanes to become bigger and more frequent, etc. (And btw the 3% who disagree were found to have errors in their reports, that when corrected come to the same assessment as the other 97%.) https://www.sciencealert.com/errors-common-in-the-3-of-climate-studies-that-reject-the-global-warming-consensus-study-finds |
His audience isn't just exclusive to southern Florida though. It spans the whole United States. He might have a higher concentration in Florida however, due to his presence there.
I agree the consequences can be lethal as well, but people will be stubborn and if they choose to ignore warnings from local, state, and federal government, that is there choice. No one was forcing those people to leave, just that it might be in their best interests.
People really aren't donating to Rush though. His audience is 27 million people (according to statistics he read on his show today). It's mostly ad revenue (though some might be donating to the show, who knows what people do with their money nowadays), or as he calls it, an "obscene profit break".
Thanks for your perspective :)
Toxic poll question. Where is this "tolerance"? Seems a bit petty.
| Bandorr said: Found Rush to be fairly hilarious myself. If the hurricanes are real - climate change is real. If climate change is real, science is real. If science is real then evolution is real. Etc, etc, etc. Basically science threatens those who only have belief to cling to. It scares them. |
| Nymeria said: I think the age of the internet has led to people seeking out like minded mentalities to create echo chambers. If you're 1 in a 100 saying something, you may start to question your rationale. If you're the majority in a group it reinforces the view. Essentially there are hundreds or thousands of realities people in the world inhabit that makes cross discussion nearly impossible. |
So Nymeria would you acknowledge the possibility that the charts is one such echo chamber? Look at Bandorr's post, he throws out a potentially false equivalency and after 50 more posts is challenged by no one ... This thread is a little on the boring side so I had to find something to "disagree" with / call out. Now that I think about it more vocal members are (American) left leaning on this site with a very sparse representation of the American right which would help to fit in the echo chamber categorization. What do you think especially as one of those I would likely label as American Left Leaning?
The_Yoda said:
So Nymeria would you acknowledge the possibility that the charts is one such echo chamber? Look at Bandorr's post, he throws out a potentially false equivalency and after 50 more posts is challenged by no one ... This thread is a little on the boring side so I had to find something to "disagree" with / call out. Now that I think about it more vocal members are (American) left leaning on this site with a very sparse representation of the American right which would help to fit in the echo chamber categorization. What do you think especially as one of those I would likely label as American Left Leaning? |
Any group or individual is susceptible to indulging in an echo chamber. The key is what rules govern your thoughts and views. Understanding why you think a certain way is critical. For example, science employs peer review and is constantly at a state of challenging on another. Consensus is achieved through mountians of studies and evidence and even then they tend to hedge their bets with "high liklihood" as reasonable doubt and questioning should always allow for revisiting a subject.
The issue is equating objectivity with balance. Many times one side of an argument has far greater evidence than another and is not left to interpretation. One side exhuasting themselves via thorough explanation is not matched by the other side simply denying it. The standards for both must be equal when you are discussing matters of science, that is how we progress our understanding. The universe is unconcerned with our whims or biases.
There are issues which come down to subjective morality and the way one sees a society operating and interprates human behavior. For example, the nature of taxes and social programs. How much do we spend? What do we invest in? Is it an economic argument or a moral one? These don't have easy answers because we're discussing the nature of humanity which is complex and often not revealed until after the fact. It also can involve compromise and discomfort in dealing with our nature.
Too often we get hung up on "winning" by defating the enemy we see in debate. If the core tennant is understanding then regardless of where on the political spectrum one falls they should grow and evolve in their views. I would say as a general rule if one has not changed thier opinion on anything in five years they may want to revisit everything to reaffirm exactly why they think that way.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
