I should be able to advocate my ideology.

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

here's not a single authentic document mentioning any sort of extermination program, and if you claim otherwise, you're a liar and you know it.

Oh really? Interesting.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (26 children)

He's very correct.

Also the War Of Northern Aggression was not about freeing slaves. That's more bullshit. It was about maintaining central control and full spectrum dominance when the South wanted to break away, as was their right.

Bring the irrefutable proof to counter it and I'll change my mind.

We've ALL been brainwashed since we were born with propaganda. Are you strong enough to actually look at counter narratives thoroughly to make up your mind for your self? I never wanted to be remotely associated with Nazi thinking but 5 years ago I actually looked and was profoundly shocked at what I discovered - but the wake up that really fucked with me was discovering the fact that climate change is a giant scam. I still care deeply about the environment, but now there's no doubt that everything the government and MSM push has a deceptive agenda behind it.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

We've ALL been brainwashed since we were born with propaganda. Are you strong enough to actually look at counter narratives thoroughly to make up your mind for your self?

Funny enough, I did. I grew up in a borderline cult that told me that Native Americans were descended from a single family of Jews that came here in 600 B.C. Part of moving beyond that was re-examining what I'd been told now that I was on my own. Been there, done that. Did that for the climate change debate, did it for the holocaust (why do you think I knew about "IBM and the Holocaust? Because I had read the fucking book about 9 years ago) as well as a bunch of other conspiracies.

And I am thoroughly unsurprised to find out a holocaust denier and Confederate sympathizer is also an AGW denier. Let me take a guess at what you found that "shocked" you. Naturally-occurring climate change is a thing? Gore misrepresented ice core data in claiming that CO2 rises precede temperature rise when in reality the temperature rise starts first, which triggers a massive release of CO2 which feeds in on itself, and then you concluded because of his misrepresentation that means the whole field of climate science is bogus?

Or did you fall for one of the articles highlighting when Arctic or Antarctic ice levels trend upwards for a couple years? Or did you find out that the Mann study from the 80s ended up slightly overestimating the climate forcing of CO2? Or did you fall for one of those data massaging jobs that claims the earth has barely gotten warmer at all?

I've been up and down this road with all kinds of AGW clowns. If you fell for one it's not surprising you fell for the other, because both involve casually dismissing any compelling counter-evidence as fake. You are deluding yourself if you think your beliefs are a sign of "strength".

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

" Been there, done that. "

We're never done learning.

IBM is no big secret - at all. It's barely the tip.

You have me wrong. I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. I go where the evidence and reason point me. I don't sympathize with the Confederates. I understand the story - INCLUDING the underdog's view, which is OFTEN the more accurate version that doesn't require justification by lies.

No, your climate change guess is all for shit. I've know since gradeschool that since the Ice Age everything has been gradually warming, melting, and receding. I actually did research until I was far past any room for questions. BOTH the Left and the Right cherry pick and rig their data. It's not that difficult. The painful part was that my mind knew it to be true yet my heart took at least a year to fully catch up and "switch teams". I saw Al Gore speak at Fort Mason in 2005, his speech that became "An Inconvenient Truth", and it moved me to tears. He was finally human instead of the robot he was in his 2000 campaign. But I now realize it's a scam that has made and will make him billion$. No fucking carbon tax will fix anything - it will ONLY hurt the poor nations and poor citizens.

Calling people deniers and clowns doesn't win you anything. It just shows how biased, closed minded, and unwilling to understand you are. I didn't fall for anything. I got woke to the systemic and all pervasive Machiavellianism that dominates politics and envelops everything.

I still generally lean left, despite knowing some of the old-Left is full of bullshit and the newer SJW Corporate BLM Dem Left is complete bullshit - and of course much on the right and all of the NeoCons are bullshit.

" You are deluding yourself if you think your beliefs are a sign of "strength". "

Backatcha.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

No, it sounds like I actually got pretty close. Finding out Gore was a liar was part of your reasoning, I just wrongly guessed which particular lie. But Gore's lies don't invalidate the field of climate science.

Calling people deniers and clowns doesn't win you anything. It just shows how biased, closed minded, and unwilling to understand you are

First off, if you believe that the Nazis didn't imprison and kill several million "undesirables" (mostly jews) during WW2, then "denier" is a perfectly accurate description. Similarly, if you think that climate science doesn't support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then calling you an AGW denier is also perfectly accurate. You could call me a flat earth denier because I reject the theory that the earth is essentially a plane. There's no prejudice there.

Clown is a pejorative, and it's one that I use to characterize all science deniers, because it goes even beyond the level of denial where you're denying history. I'll mock a bluecheck on Twitter claiming that there's no evidence that trans women have an advantage in sports in exactly the same way. If you're telling me that you believe there is no real evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and particularly if you're telling me that you came to this conclusion after "doing your research", you deserve to be mocked.

This shit isn't like abortion where you can make a good argument for both sides. There is a correct answer to the question of "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?", and similiarly "Are CO2 levels increasing primarily because of the widespread burning of wood and use of fossil fuels?". The answer to both is "Yes.", and the science isn't ambiguous.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

By the time I found out Gore was a liar I'd long since moved on and cared nothing about the Left-Right paradigm much less about billionaires like him. So no, you weren't even close.

I don't deny climate science. I am skeptical of all closed science. Transparent open-science is the only authentic science. The rest is blind faith in the corporatocracy and their controlled academia - all for privatized profits, not enlightenment.

I know the Nazis enSLAVEd countless undesirables. That's not a denial, that exposes the EXAGGERATIONS and MYTHOLOGY that surrounds it, as I have always stated here on SaidIt.

Call me denier of everything until the cows come home. It doesn't make it true and it will never make you correct.

Equating or comparing anything with the bullshit psyops like Flat Earth or Q-Anon or BigFoot is childish and desperate and only illustrates you ignorance on complex things that you only think you know of.

You don't win arguments with pejoratives. It's low tier on the Pyramid Of Debate.

I didn't comment on CO2 so now you're putting words in my mouth to build up your straw man to knock it down. Again you lose openly in obvious public view. I have never denied that CO2 has the potential to affect things. Water vapour is much worse. Methane is worse. There are a FUCK TONNE of other things that are much worse. Are they enough to change the climate? I remain skeptical - especially when they have hidden corrupt science for profit and rig the numbers. Are they enough to demand a carbon tax and to radically alter our lives for it? Fuck no.

Science is never settled. That's fundamental, despite the liars.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Call me denier of everything until the cows come home. It doesn't make it true and it will never make you correct.

You are, though. You deny that the Nazis engaged in mass killing, despite the abundance of Nazis that admitted that they did so. You deny the existence of the Final Solution. You're just like those NASA conspiracy theorists that admit "OK, maybe it was possible to build a rocket that could travel to the moon using late 1960s technology, but NASA couldn't get it together and decided to stage the whole thing".

You seem to feel that the existence of people that claim it's an outright fabrication means that it's ridiculous to characterize you as a denier when your position is instead that it's only 95% a fabrication.

I didn't comment on CO2

This is true, but not truthful, unless I was giving you too much credit in assuming that you had a basic understanding of what the theory of AGW actually was. You stated that climate change was a giant scam. As the central theory of climate change can be summarized as "greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are being produced from the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of land, leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, and more weather extremes", your claim that it was a scam would mean that you were asserting that rising CO2 either 1) didn't have a significant impact on the environment and wasn't worth taking global action on, or 2) wasn't actually being produced by human activity.

I'm leaning more towards 1), but both of these are wrong anyways.

I have never denied that CO2 has the potential to affect things.

You deny that it's a serious concern, despite the science indicating that it is. This is just like with the holocaust stuff where you claim that 95%+ of the deaths didn't happen and the Nazis weren't executing any of them.

Water vapour is much worse. Methane is worse.

You would have had this backwards even if your statement about water vapor wasn't mostly wrong anyways. Methane is responsible for much more climate forcing per unit of mass than CO2. Water vapor would only be "worse". But water vapor already exists naturally in the atmosphere anyways. What makes CO2 such a problem is that it has strong absorption characteristics in the 15-18 micrometer range, a spectrum where water vapor doesn't absorb much, and where the earth radiates a fair amount of energy.

Are they enough to change the climate? I remain skeptical

This is where you're just not read up on the literature and treating this ignorance as your strength. The evidence for the amount of CO2 we're putting out creating a powerful greenhouse effect vs. it not creating a powerful greenhouse effect isn't comparable.

I watched the first 5 minutes of that first video you linked, and if this level of argument is what you find compelling then it just confirms you don't understand the theory either. His whole point about y-axis truncation shows that he doesn't get it at all. Global average temperatures are in the 290s kelvin.

Even in the best case scenario where we get our shit together and get to net zero emissions by 2030, we're still looking at +1.5C for the foreseeable future. Which under his retarded logic, is really negligible. But even that number creates higher sea levels that will erode a lot of coastline and create more extreme weather. And the reality is we're probably going to get to at least +2C, and could even get to +3C. Still looks insignificant on his "Very Enlightened Untruncated Graph", but +3C would result in sea level rise of several meters and destroy a lot of coastal cities. Warm areas would become like Phoenix and be borderline unlivable. The temp increase would render a lot of farmland unworkable as well. And yet it would still look like something that doesn't matter on his retarded graph, despite putting entire cities underwater.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

" You deny that the Nazis engaged in mass killing "

I said no such thing. War is mass murder. There was a fucking war. Both sides are VERY guilty.

Further, I don't deny anything. I say there is no proof. Bring on the proof. The proof is that tens of thousands, up to almost 200,000 died from typhus, other sickness, starvation, natural causes, etc. The small gas chambers were used to delouse the clothing. There were no meat grinders or cart tracks or even wheel barrel marks on the frames of the doors - so who emptied the corpses out of these "death showers"? VERY inefficient considering they bothered to tattoo and shave and ship them to that central place instead of simply allowing the locked train car to sit unopened for a couple weeks, unfed, perhaps in winter. Then if they were smart, they'd have an industrial meat grinder under a bridge to open up a trap door to dispose of them with little evidence into a river.

I've provided ample evidence. You are too stuck in your ways to even consider the possibility that I may be correct. What have you got to lose? Are you Jewish? Is your identity tied to events from long ago, even if fiction? Waking up to the myriad of manipulations is not easy. Because it's not easy I try not to be too dismissive or pejorative to people who can't break free, yet. But I only have so much patience.

" despite the abundance of Nazis that admitted that they did so "

Not abundance. Under duress. Much like anyone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq will say anything to get out of GitMo.

The victors get to write history, their way. Meanwhile EVERYONE has lost tremendously, except the ruling class.

" You deny the existence of the Final Solution. "

There is no documentation to support it. Only the Jewish controlled media since the 1970s has been pushing the Holocaust and this "Final Solution" in their movies and TV. Some are actually very good entertainment, but like most history in media is complete bullshit.

" You're just like those NASA conspiracy theorists that admit "OK, maybe it was possible to build a rocket that could travel to the moon using late 1960s technology, but NASA couldn't get it together and decided to stage the whole thing". "

Close-ish. No one knows what NASA was or is capable of. It's government with secrets. There is proof that much of what we've been fed is bullshit, including the footage and photos of the moon stuff. However, just because they staged the event doesn't mean they didn't also do it for real - but without the good footage and photos (for too many obvious technical reasons to delve into now). Maybe they did and maybe they didn't but the photos and footage are bullshit. See also: /s/comedy/comments/9jx/when_you_know_the_government_lies_but_you_still/

" You seem to feel that the existence of people that claim it's an outright fabrication means that it's ridiculous to characterize you as a denier when your position is instead that it's only 95% a fabrication. "

I always start that it's an "exaggeration" of many elements and then add that it's a "myth" which may have elements of truth in it - plus there's a never ending cascade of shit and bullshit related to it. It is inaccurate and ridiculous to call me a denier or any other pejorative.

" I was giving you too much credit in assuming that you had a basic understanding of "

Your pejorative tone means this is my last response. Also, it seems abundantly clear, not just in this conversation, that you prefer ignorance, are stubborn, and/or a shill.

" 1) didn't have a significant impact on the environment and wasn't worth taking global action on, or 2) wasn't actually being produced by human activity "

Both, AND 3) is entirely designed to create global carbon tax which will impact the poorest nations and the poorest people of all nations first and foremost. Meanwhile the ruling class can buy their way out of anything, and those of use in between will have yet another form of oppression that trickles down through ever facet of life.

" You deny that it's a serious concern, despite the science indicating that it is. This is just like with the holocaust stuff where you claim that 95%+ of the deaths didn't happen and the Nazis weren't executing any of them. "

The entire academia is enslaved by the corporatocracy and their "science" is corrupt. Further they censor dissent. You NEVER have to censor the truth if you are honest.

You keep saying 95%. Your math is for shit. 6,000,000 is the claim and it's been widely stated that it was actually almost 200,000.

If only 5 minutes is all you will watch after I've offered ample evidence then clearly you're not here to learn. More insults don't win. It just proves you're here to be right - but you are not correct.

I have no more time for you and I think you're either a shill or an idiot but I'm certain you're an asshole and a waste of time.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You deny that the Nazis engaged in mass killing.

Discredit the opposition by using a strawman.

Classic.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If only 5 minutes is all you will watch after I've offered ample evidence then clearly you're not here to learn.

You're still telling yourself that you sent me some great videos that I would have learned a lot from. You didn't. Corbett was very wrong in asserting that "y-axis truncation" was evidence of funny business when we're talking about climate trends, which was why I stopped watching. The difference between catastrophic damage from climate change, and tolerable damage from climate change, is only a few degrees celsius. The difference between where we're already at, and where we were 100 years ago, is about 1 degree celsius. That's already a significant increase.

He seemed to not know any of that, and that you believed this video is what was supposed to be learning from leads me to believe you didn't know that either. I stopped watching because based on what you had already said I took you to be someone that didn't actually know that much about the science of climate change, and watching this video only confirmed it. Sorry you're upset that I didn't keep watching a video explaining why climate change is bogus that made by a guy that doesn't understand the actual numbers, sent to me by another guy that doesn't understand the actual numbers.

" You deny the existence of the Final Solution. " There is no documentation to support it. Only the Jewish controlled media since the 1970s has been pushing the Holocaust and this "Final Solution" in their movies and TV.

Really? Then why can I find several newspapers from the 1946-1949 period talking about the final solution? Are these papers just fabrications that never existed in the first place? Or are you now asserting that the Jews already controlled the media at the end of WW2?

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

You're still telling yourself that you have better perception for truth-seeking despite the corrupt academia and their private corporate "science" for profit that they tell us is in our best interests and won't ever be exploitative.

Clearly you don't.

For OVER a dozen years they've been saying the sky would fall in a dozen years. It's as much bullshit as Al Gore's hockey stick.

During that POST-war 1946-1949 period, the victors could rewrite history as they choose, while they also permitted at least a half a million, if not several million Germans, innocent or not, to be mass murdered across Europe. At that point they'd begun slaughtering countless Palestinians as Israel was unjustly claimed for "reasons", justified by some alleged war crimes. You're an idiot if you didn't already know that Hollywood has ALWAYS been dominated by Jewish studios with rare exceptions. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=History+of+Jews+in+Hollywood

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This professor debunks the six million figure and gas chamber hoax, what nobody denies is that Jews were persecuted:

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/03/09/what-can-explain-the-holocaust-testimonies/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2017/11/18/lets-take-some-example-conspiracy-theory/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2017/11/18/still-the-same-topic/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/24/my-final-solution-of-the-final-solution/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/06/13/what-happened-to-the-jews-sent-to-the-chelmno-concentration-camp/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/08/22/an-update-on-the-holocaust-death-toll-jewish-population-of-the-soviet-union-in-n1939-and-1946-plus-other-comments/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2020/01/23/revised-calculations-of-the-jewish-holocaust-death-toll/

https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/21/a-brief-look-at-the-commandant-of-auschwitz-by-rudolf-hoess/

Anyone who reads these articles in full will clearly see that there are many lies being perpetrated by the allies, including the whitewash that revisionists deny that Jews were persecuted, they do not.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

Your science denier rhetoric is just ad hominem. Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account:

CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold - Suspicious0bservers

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

^ Indeed. Thank you.

Fedi seems to be correct 1/4 of the time and annoying as hell 3/4. I might start to largely ignore him.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

Yes, but if you reject a well-supported theory in favor of something which has no scientific merit for religious or political reasons, you are a science denier.

An obvious example would be religious people that reject the theory that the earth is billions of years old in favor of the theory that it's 10,000 years old, because that's what's implied in the bible. Or people that reject the theory that humanity is the result of a gradual process of evolution in favor of the theory that humans were created all at once and we're all descended from two people that existed less than 10,000 years ago and evolution is fake but also it isn't because you need evolution to explain different races and also different animal species because 2 of every species couldn't fit on a boat of any size that you could built out of wood and so on.

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

See this last quoted line is your first "I'm only pretending to understand how all of this works" fuckup. The composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change. If you have even a basic understanding of what the greenhouse effect actually is, and accept that it is real, then the assertion that the composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change is self-evidently true.

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account

And this is your 2nd, and bigger, fuckup. Did you assert the the 11-year solar cycle wasn't being taken into account? You did not. Did you assert that the fewer observed sunspots that correlate with the Maunder Minimum imply that the sun's output fluctuates? You did not. Did you make any actual assertions about how the sun's output has changed over the period where we've observed rising temperatures that would even begin to explain why we're seeing rising temperatures? You did not.

Instead, you just made a hand-wavy statement AND LINKED TO A FUCKING HOUR LONG YOUTUBE VIDEO. I couldn't even tell you how many AGW "skeptics" have pulled basically the same shit. It's almost as obnoxious as when flat-earthers link me to that "200 proofs the earth is flat" video.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

OK, LOL!

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can't defend yourself, so you just duck out. Typical.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are a time suck and I won't waste it on you.

I also suspect you may be a shill as you are far too active, dogmatic, stuck in your views, and driven with whatever your agenda is. Most normal people are reasonable, will admit when they're wrong, and don't argue ad nauseam.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You act like an ass and you want me to spell out climate science for you in a post?

I gave you what I feel is a good reference. It is an hour long video. If you don't want to look at it, don't.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics (20:50) ~ corbettreport, Nov 25, 2015

HellStorm interviews with David and Paul (52:20) ~ Ryan Dawson, Aug 24, 2020

[–]IRONICALLY_A_NAZI 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Provides no documentation.

You are the one revising history.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I posted some news articles talking about it back in the 40s in a different thread. But there's no point engaging with a tard who preemptively declares that any evidence you might put forward is fake.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jews were persecuted, Jews were executed, the six million figure and gas chambers are lies.