Got no evidence? Can’t hold a rational discussion? Just call people names — smear them.
David Evans (my other half) pointed out that anyone who opposed the regulating class gets called a racist sooner or later (see those quotes at the end). Now it’s happened to him.
Two weeks after getting a mention of climate “feedbacks” intoThe Age, he’s being called antisemitic. And on what basis? Wait for it… two years ago, on a different topic, Dr David Evans wrote the word “Rothschilds”. Then those who can’t think, but were keen to do a character assassination, leapt to use their psychic abilities, crack secret codes, and drew on their best kindergarten reasoning to call that “antisemitic”. The essay was about banking history and systematic flaws in our currency system, and there was no mention of any religion or any race. But no matter, it’s just another variation of the pathetic Holocaust denier meme. It’s what a smear-artist does — denigrate speakers to try to stop people hearing their message.
As usual, a lack of evidence doesn’t stop the rabid conspiracy-theory-spotters from writing reams of speculation about something that isn’t there and never was. David has never mentioned anything about a Jewish conspiracy, never even alluded to it, and of course, neither have I, nor would we.
Here’s the “chain of reasoning” (I’m using the term loosely):
Are the climate models exaggerating the feedbacks? –> David Evans said “Rothschild” once –> Other unrelated people who talk about the Rothschilds are nutters –> some nutters are anti-Semitic –> therefore, ergo, the models are right and Earth’s climate sensitivity is 3.3C with a feedback loop gain of 0.65!
Who knew? Anyone who writes about monetary history apparently can’t mention “Rothschild” without it neutralizing not only what they say on economics, but every word they utter on every other topic. Which is bad news for Niall Ferguson. He not only mentioned the Rothschilds, I’ve just discovered he wrote two whole books on them (Vol I and Vol II).
Not to state the bleeding obvious but you can’t discuss monetary history without the Rothschilds getting a mention.
If you aren’t name-called by the Green Left, you’re aren’t working hard enough.
Aw, c’mon. Don’t we do our share of name-calling? Leftie-lusers, watermelon whackjobs, las warmistas, caterwauling catastrophists, “green” gropers, climate “consensus” conspirators, “hockey stick” hoaxers, data-dumping dorks….
Okay, I’ve got a “thing” for alliteration.
And that is why I consider the namecalling counter-productive.
However, there is a difference between saying “alarmist”, which while negative, is descriptive, or even “watermelon”, which is extremely negative and a bit crass, yet it is descriptive and can be used in a limited fashion as an effective “wham phrase”, and more derisive attacks like “Denier”, “industry shill”, “Anti-Semite”, and “Criminal against humanity”. All of these have specific, extremely negative definitions.
It is a matter of degree.
I could say intellectually vacant with no curiosity, but libtard is so much easier to type. So I will continue using it.
I would like to add reality challenged to the list. Also perhaps O2 deprived at birth?
I tend to stay away from name calling as it dilutes your message. Simply use their name, state what they said and what you think is wrong with it, and leave your opinions as to their mental state at the door. Maybe not as entertaining, but in the end maybe more effective.
Feh. It’s not enough just to whup these “Liberal” fascists.
I want them to know they’re not only going to be buried, but we’re going to dance on their graves.