Overpopulation AND Overconsumption.

[pan]

Both.

[pan]

oooh! he throws globalization, neoliberalism, imperialism, racist and fascist into his rhetoric of labeling.

Yet Johnny insists that others attack him personally while he stays above the fray......

[Mark]

There's a difference between words used to make a point as part of a logical, rational argument directed toward an issue under discussion, and words used in posts like this one of yours and the last couple of posts by BO, that do not address the issues, are totally devoid of substance, and use words only as personal attacks. It doesn't matter if you address "Johnny," me, or any other person, you are still addressing a person rather than an issue. That's called ad hominem. As hominem means "to the person."

Part of the problem is that you see everything as a fray, a pissing contest, a competition, etc., and you are determined to "win," by any means possible, without regard to whether you are right or wrong. The issues don't interest you, just the competition. So much of the time you ignore or skirt the issues and post comments that are totally ad hominem.

I'm always willing to debate issues and topics.

Here's the post I wrote that you just responded to::

Your "more global outlook" is called globalization, otherwise known as neoliberalism or imperialism.

That responds to your argument that you had a more global outlook, and does not attack you personally.

And it is racist and fascist. But it is very consistent.

Again, I am responding to your argument, not calling you, some "Johnny" created to represent you, names. But I don't just characterize your argument as racist and fascist, I go on to explain WHY it is racist and fascist:

Kind of funny, though. If there was a gang armed with assault weapons in your neighborhood who held you up and stole your wallet any time they saw you, I don't think you'd say that they have "a more global outlook," I think you'd say they were stealing from you. I guess it is all in the point of view.

The argument in the article you posted, that people can easily be self-sufficient if they have enough money to buy food or enough power to take other people's food by force, is not "a more global outlook," it is a justification for predatory capitalism.

You need to learn to distinguish between an argument directed at an issue or made in response to or to refute another argument about an issue, and a personal attack that is NOT directed to any issue or argument and contains no argument. I think you already know how to do that and are just pretending you think that any time I refute your arguments, I'm attacking you. Or maybe you actually believe that anyone who argues with you is attacking you. Like BO not being able to support his assertions but resorting to calling me crazy simply because I disagreed with him. Both strategies are cheap shots, the equivalent of lawyers "pounding the table" when they don't have the facts or the law on their side.

[pan]

Mark - calling someone's line of thinking racist is no different than calling them a racist.

You really should look at the Glass House you're living in and stop throwing stones. You seem to projecting and speaking from your own experience when you suggest that "anyone who argues with you is attacking you"

You have a tendency to willfully ignore what I have posted. I have written more than once that both Ethiopia and the U.K. are overpopulated yet you cite the article I posted (and the part I didn't cut and paste) in order to suggest that I am supporting "a justification for predatory capitalism". I have not ever suggested that the U.K. is self-sufficient.

You use word games to twist my definition of territory that one must be responsible to and be aware of to globalism because I used the wording "a more global outlook" at the same time you insist that the U.S. and White people in general need to have a more global outlook on how their overconsumption is destroying the planet (as stance I have never disagreed with). You are inconsistent when it serves you while demanding consistency in others.

You keep singing your song and I respond "Yes, and...."

And you keep saying that the song doesn't allow for "and".

[Mark]

Pan, there's a difference between saying that a belief is irrational and racist, and explaining why, and just saying, "You're racist."

The condescending insults that BO has posted (and attributed to your collaboration) are ad hominem attacks, not logical arguments.

You admit that, "...White people in general need to have a more global outlook on how their overconsumption is destroying the planet," but you and BO insist that the overpopulation which is not destroying the planet and cannot destroy the planet is an equally important problem that deserves our immediate attention.

I agree with you that pollution from nonbiodegradable petrochemicals and radioactive substances that are now so widespread that they couldn't be cleaned up even if we knew how, is not the only problem. There are many other problems and I'm not denying that there are many other problems. I just feel that the problem which is irreversibly destroying the planet is more important than the problems that aren't.

If we have a timebomb that is set to go off in five minutes, I think we should try to defuse it. You are welcome to point out that the clock is two minutes fast or slow, or has some chipped paint, or that the glass is cracked, but I don't want to make it more accurate, touch up the paint, or replace the glass, I want to defuse it. I'm not denying that those are real problems, and once we've defused the bomb, if we can manage it, I'll be happy to help you fix the clock.

I understand that you and BO agree that we're confronting a timebomb set to go off in five minutes, and that you want to focus on problems that you see as being equally important to the problem of defusing the bomb. In fact, you seem to think that my obsession with defusing the bomb is insanity and that I should be put away.

Sometimes I think you're right, that I shouldn't be obsessed with defusing the bomb, and that I should be more cooperative and help you adjust it to the correct time, repaint it, and replace the glass. But then I think about Waldo and Curt and Hannah and Cal and Mouse and LOM and Sandy and Libra and all the other great folks here, and I get pissed, fly off the handle, and say things like, "Help me defuse this bomb or get the fuck out of my way."

I apologize for my rudeness. I guess I'm just not cynical enough yet. My bad.

[pan]

"Help me defuse this bomb or get the fuck out of my way."

And just what are you (or anyone else) doing to defuse that bomb? Yes, reducing one's own consumption helps but individuals' actions are akin to removing a drop from a swelling tide that presages the tsunami.

I don't see how arguing or labeling those who otherwise agree with every statement you are making and share your concerns deeply (if you are interested in researching this you could review all past posts by either BO or me on this and the previous incarnation of RBC and you would find many, many, many posts by each of us that are saying essentially the same thing you are saying now) contributes anything to defusing the bomb.

I also don't see how labeling it as Patriarchy or Racism is useful. A War on Patriarchy or a War on Racism is just about as useful as a War on Poverty, Drugs or Terrorism. And just as likely to make absolutely no difference.

The Hegemonic Racist Patriarchy is a wonderful concept to understand intellectually. Once one understands it - what next? What can you or I do to "help defuse this bomb"?

You are claiming the rest of the community here at RBC (while conspicuously leaving BO & I out of the community) and I am glad that you see the value of this little island. A while back Curt counciled you to stop fucking with Pan and me to stop letting you fuck with me. I must admit that I have been fucking with you (even though I still see the value in a paradigm that includes the word "and"). And for that I apologize. It has a negative impact upon the culture here at RBC.

And that is what is most valuable here at RBC. Our little intellectual debates here do very little to actually defuse the bomb. We are here to share information and ideas but, more than anything, to find solace in an insane world in a tiny electronic island of sanity.

I apologize to everyone for contributing to a dialogue that runs counter to the spirit of our community.

[Mark]

Pan writes: "And just what are you (or anyone else) doing to defuse that bomb? Yes, reducing one's own consumption helps but individuals' actions are akin to removing a drop from a swelling tide that presages the tsunami."

What tsunami, Pan? A tsunami of post-reproductive wealthy white male overconsumers? There are fewer and fewer of them all the time, but as wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, each one becomes more and more destructive of the planet. A single billionaire with a yacht and a private jet contributes more to irreversible global warming that a billion poor people who don't own vehicles or have access to electricity.

Many environmentalists have written stuff that helped me learn that parts of my lifestyle were destructive to the environment. Instead of accusing them of declaring war on destruction or labeling me destructive, or insisting that the little damage that I do doesn't really matter, I try (and I sometimes even partially succeed) to be a bit less destructive. Particularly when I agree with them.

Thanks for admitting that you started this topic just to fuck with me. Thanks for admitting that doing things just to fuck with people creates a hostile atmosphere. And thanks for apologizing.

You are correct that if our "little intellectual debates here do very little to actually defuse the bomb," at least they can provide a "tiny electronic island of sanity" "in an insane world," so that a few of us can find "solace" on this island. But to say that somebody is mentally ill and in need of care (as BO did) because they said something that you agree with, but that you felt was a good opportunity to fuck with them, is to remove yourself from the community.

Your criticism of me as a "Johnny One-Note," Pan, is also disruptive. You say that you, "...see the value in a paradigm that includes the word "and"."

I don't see anything wrong with "and." If we're discussing vegetables, we can discuss tomatoes AND potatoes. If we're posting music we can post rock AND fusion. But if we're discussing world peace, it is disruptive to respond to a post about nonviolent communications with a post about the most efficient way to kill people. An "and" has to be on the same topic and be a constructive contribution. When the topic is the irreversible destruction of the planet, something like overpopulation, which does not contribute to the irreversible destruction of the planet, is an "OR," not an "AND."

Now you can argue that talking about things you already understand doesn't help, and that only action helps. In which case, if you really believe that, you'd stop posting. Some of us believe that developing good frames, paradigms, memes, etc., can help promote constructive actions, in the same way that bad ones promote or excuse destructive actions.

Do you think that's possible? Do you think it might be worth devoting bandwidth to? Or would that just be a waste of time? ;)

[pan]

FYI Johnny One-Note is a great song by one of the greatest songwriting teams of all time, Rodgers and Hart.

I used the song for a successful audition for an original musical called Legacy which was produced during Black History Month at the Lorraine Hansbury Theater in San Francisco. As a white actor in a black theater production about the history of Black America I got to play several racist stereotypes through history. When I was dressed in Klan sheets holding a torch as a powerful baritone sang Strange Fruit I felt physically ill - a very powerful theatrical moment.

[BO]

An interesting observation last night...

Went to a restaurant with my son and saw a black guy wearing a black t-shirt with the phrase "Uppity Negro" on it in big white letters. Thought it was a pretty damn aggressive statement. Kinda made me want to rush home and put on my white supremacy t-shirt.

[BO]

Sound like anyone you know?

Intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

--the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading

--the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

[Mark]

Yes, it sounds like two people I know.

--They're both fully aware that overconsumption is a problem and freely admit it, but they advocate a focus on overpopulation that they know to be false and misleading.

--In their posts about overpopulation, they consciously omit the larger and vastly more destructive problem of overconsumption which they know and admit is relevant to the particular context.

They would like to use rhetoric to advance their agenda or reinforce their deeply held beliefs, but lacking rhetorical skills they resort to ad hominem attacks and posts that contain nothing but smears, insinuations, and innuendos. They are aware of and admit that overconsumption is a problem, but if they can't advocate focusing solely on overpopulation they post comments that omit any evidence (or cite biased "evidence"), neglect to do any research, and act as if their position is confirmed. They do this out of both ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

The only "evidence" they have to support their position comes from their own statements that they're right and anyone who disagrees is mentally ill, and from propaganda put out by those benefiting from the racist propaganda that shifts attention from overconsumption to the scapegoating of brown people having babies. They ask me for evidence to support my position, but when I provide it they ignore evidence from the UN, the USDA, and any other potentially unbiased source, and act as if it was never posted.

Once again, BO, your post is off-topic, contributes nothing to the discussion, contains nothing of substance about the issues, and is nothing more than thinly veiled name-calling.

Posting ad hominem attacks in lieu of rational arguments is just another cheap shot and it isn't going to help your karma, BO.

[pan]

Johnny - who has referred to others as racist, fascist, neo-liberal, globalism, imperialism - adds "lacking rhetorical skills" and "resort to ad hominem attacks" to his ad hominem attacks.

He continues to project his own unwillingness to consider any evidence that doesn't support his One-Note chorus onto those who would suggest to him that his catch-all conclusion for all the ills in the world is reductionistic, simplistic, and, ultimately not very useful for anyone who is attempting to find local solutions for local problems (even though they are caused by the neo-liberal, imperialist, racist, fascist perpetuators of globalism).

Labeling the famine in Ethiopia as a result of Patriarchy and all that other stuff coming from the U.S. does absolutely nothing to empower the Ethiopians to fix the problems that they must endure. It makes them dependent upon the U.S./Europe to fix their problems - as I have written before - it recasts the White Man's Burden as the White Man's Guilt which is.......racist.

[Mark]

Both Ethiopia and the UK may be overpopulated, but the Ethiopian lifestyle is sustainable and the British lifestyle is not.

If Ethiopians overpopulate, they'll die off and no permanent harm is done to the planet. If they overconsume, they'll get sick, but they won't permanently poison the planet.

Overpopulation does not threaten the planet's survival. It occurs regularly, the excess die off, and life continues as the patriarchal pattern repeats.

Overconsumption alone wouldn't threaten the planet either, as long as it was limited to things that are biodegradable.

It is the western lifestyle that produces things like petrochemical products and radioactive wastes that are not biodegradable, can never be cleaned up, and have been poisoning the planet to the point where it may no longer be able to sustain life.

Those who wish to destroy the planet so that they can enjoy their creature comforts, don't like it when anyone points out that they are destroying the planet just so that they can enjoy their creature comforts. So they point to things that cannot possibly poison the planet in perpetuity, and try to terrorize everyone into thinking that there is an overpopulation crisis, when in fact there is no such thing.

If being the richest man in the world can't empower Bill Gates enough so that he could do more good than harm, "empowering" Ethiopians won't help either. Each Ethiopian, on average, consumes a tenth a much as the average American, and most of what Ethiopians consume is biodegradable and doesn't poison the planet. Most of what Americans consume is not biodegradable and does permanetly poison the planet. Ethiopians and others in Africa may be forced to mine uranium, but they don't consume it. They don't have nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants, so they don't need a steady supply of uranium to feed their habits and they don't produce a steady stream of thousands of tons of radioactive wastes that cannot be disposed of.