Lauren Souther of Rebel media, the girl who held up the sign at the Slut Walk is doing an AMA

[–]CaptainButtGrabber 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cu_Gorm 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MattClark0995 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Macismyname 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bertreapot 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bertreapot 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi_win 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MattClark0995 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]itgscv1 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Being a climate change denier means being willfully ignorant of facts and science, burying your head in the sand and ignoring anyone that tells you your stance is incorrect and has facts/evidence to back it up. Where have I seen that before? O right radical feminists.

She has a video trying to show that climate scientists have it wrong, when its been proven beyond any doubt that climate change is happening and is affected by humans. I personally don't have much patience for someone that takes a look at the fact that the over whelming majority (98%) of climate scientists agree climate change is happening and try to rationalize it away. Kind of like what feminists do with perpetuating the wage gap or 1 in 5.

Funny how an ad hominem attack like this is getting upvoted, I thought this sub was about using facts, logic, evidence, statistics to make a case instead of circlejerking against liberals?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]itgscv1 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At work so I can't watch/link the video right now. I can try to find the link for you in a few hours. I never said it invalidates her perspective on anything else. There were a few people in the ama that expressed this view, I don't agree with them.

The problem is people are very good at compartmentalizing, they're rational and skeptical about certain things, but on others they refuse to look at facts, confirmation bias at its finest. There are tons of examples of people like this, feminists, anti vaxxers, creationists, extreme left/right, religious, sjw, etc.

I've always agreed that an argument rises and stands based on its own merit. That means that I can agree with most of her points against feminism, but disagree with her on climate change. There's going to be a bit of a mix between left and right because feminism has infiltrated all aspects of society.

[–]Deansdale 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

its been proven beyond any doubt that climate change is happening

True. It doesn't even need proving, the Earth's climate was never stable.

...and is affected by humans

False. Link me actual proof that it is us who made the climate change and I will give you reddit gold for a year. Any percentage of scientists "thinking so" is not proof. I want a step-by-step description of what humanity did, how that caused the climate to change, and what proof is there that it wouldn't have changed if it weren't for the specific activity we did. For one example, people are saying it's CO2, because it's a greenhouse gas. Okay, but its concentration is still very-very low in the atmosphere (4 CO2 molecules out of every 10.000 in the air) and the global temperatures change up and down regardless of our CO2 output. So it isn't conclusive at all.

[–]DevilishRogue -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Insisting on something is not proof. I refuse to just accept at face value that humanity is somehow responsible for changing something that was never stable to begin with. We have detonated more than 1000 nuclear warheads and it didn't cause any observable changes in our climate, I wonder how afraid we should be because we breathe out CO2. It's hubris to think that we (little ants on a global scale) affect our planet so much. A volcano eruption could cause climate changes that make humanity practically extinct and we couldn't even protect ourselves from it probably, yet people believe we are so powerful we 'overwrite' other effects like sun activity. And people believe this nonsense despite there being literally no proof for it. All the graphs about CO2 and temperature are meaningless at best, and most of them directly disprove the idea that CO2 causes climate change. Look at this one for example, which is supposed to prove man-made climate change. At first it seems fine, but hey, what's up between 1880 and 1910? The CO2 levels are constantly rising but temperatures are constantly falling. From 1910 to 1943 the temperatures are rising like hell but the CO2 acts the same as before. Between 1935 and 1950 the CO2 levels were stable yet the temperature first rose .5 degrees then dropped 1.5! From 1997 to the present the temperatures are relatively steady while CO2 levels rose considerably. And these are 15-30 year periods, you couldn't even argue that these are just quick, random variations. How is this decisive evidence about anything???

Certainly there is evidence

Strangely enough this evidence cannot be linked to by anyone. I have heard people talk about it in vague terms like you do, but I have never seen it. And I'm not sheepish enough to accept illogical notions just because the herd wants me to. Too many times these assertions turned out to be outright lies; like the widely held belief that women are oppressed by men. Or that carbs are good for you. Or that the democrats and the conservatives are opponents. Or that you should treat your SO like a princess if you want a good marriage. I could list a dozen things that are outrageous lies coming from the establishment, so I fail to see why I should believe them now that they want a carbon tax and say it's justified because CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. Or to cool. Or to stay the same. Whatever the change, it is caused by CO2, dammit! When the warming stopped and they had to rename global warming to climate change, this should have alerted people that something is not quite right, but, alas, people are idiots and measure their self worth by conformity rather than knowledge.

[–]DevilishRogue -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Insisting on something is not proof.

Actually, logical argument is proof.

I refuse to just accept at face value that humanity is somehow responsible for changing something that was never stable to begin with.

Humanity isn't responsible for changing it, merely for influencing that change.

Strangely enough this evidence cannot be linked to by anyone.

You've linked to some directly yourself! CO2 does affect climate and man is responsible for increasing CO2 output therefore man does affect climate.

You seem under the mistaken belief that I am a climate change zealot. I am not. I merely recognise that Earth's climate is in a constant state of change and that mankind, as an actor within that environment necessarily has some effect upon it. This is necessarily true and as I've stated previously the only issue about which there is uncertainty is the extent to which mankind is responsible for that change.

[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually, logical argument is proof.

It could be, if it is built on provable facts. But this:

Simply by existing man has an impact on climate change.

is not a logical argument, it's a statement based on what you think is 'common knowledge' or something. You have to prove statements like this with data or facts.

Humanity isn't responsible for changing it, merely for influencing that change.

How do you know that this is so? How much we influence climate and in what direction(s)? Can this be measured or proven? How do you know that this is a bad thing? What is the baseline that we should strive to "return" the climate to?

You've linked to some directly yourself!

And I have shown why it proves nothing. There seems to be some correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures here and there, but this correlation is not always present, meaning that it's not direct causation. If you would argue that eating yogurt causes a fever and present a graph showing 30-40% of yogurt eaters had fevers after or before eating yogurt you'd be laughed out of the scientific community. Yet people accept this level of "proof" for climate change because "the scientists agree".

I don't think you're a zealot, I think you just accept things most people believe in because of peer pressure. You don't look into the data, you don't search for actual facts. I'm not saying you're a bad person for it (~95% of people work that way) but you really shouldn't argue vehemently on topics you only have a cursory knowledge about.

[–]DevilishRogue -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But this:

Simply by existing man has an impact on climate change.

is not a logical argument, it's a statement based on what you think is 'common knowledge' or something. You have to prove statements like this with data or facts.

It is a fact and I have already explained why:

Earth's climate is in a constant state of change and that mankind, as an actor within that environment necessarily has some effect upon it. This is necessarily true...

This is a logical argument.

There seems to be some correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures here and there, but this correlation is not always present, meaning that it's not direct causation

It doesn't have to be a directly causal relationship for it to be a causal relationship. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that humans are responsible for increasing CO2 emissions therefore we know that humans contribute to climate change to some degree or other.

I don't think you're a zealot, I think you just accept things most people believe in because of peer pressure.

I believe what I believe based on logical argument.

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Earth's climate is in a constant state of change and that mankind, as an actor within that environment necessarily has some effect upon it.

This is just another statement that needs some proof to back it up. Earth's climate showed radical changes before mankind even existed, it's absolutely not a given that our mere existence is anything more than a spit in the ocean climate-wise. Other forces influencing our climate are so much more powerful and influential than we are that it is arrogance to think that we're "real players" affecting things we don't even understand completely. Your argument would mean that ants and antelopes also cause climate change since they're "actors within that environment" - but it makes the whole idea meaningless because if everything influences climate and we couldn't stop that no matter how hard we tried than this climate change commotion is literally an impossible and endless war against something we can't beat. And since we can't even measure our effect we can not know what we should do to counteract it, so anything we consciously do can just worsen what we unconsciously did. It is glaringly obvious that even our most revered scientists do not understand climate completely, so how fucked up we are to let them experiment with changing it to "undo" something we can't measure or even prove exists.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that humans are responsible for increasing CO2 emissions therefore we know that humans contribute to climate change to some degree or other.

First of all, for a greenhouse gas to have any effect on climate it has to reach a certain concentration in the atmosphere. Mars has a significant greenhouse effect but its atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2, which is very, very far from causing significant changes in the climate. Raising it from 0.03% to 0.04% probably wouldn't ruin the planet, and since it already happened, we can safely say it didn't. Also, CO2 levels changed without us humans around too, so it's still a dubious idea that now it's only us who are responsible for the current changes - getting us back to the question that how can you measure or prove your effect on something that changes randomly without your interference anyways.

For the last 20 years the establishment have told us that everything's our fault, humans are causing all the changes and we might be on the verge of a huge catastrophe (or even extinction) right now. Which is absolute, utter bullshit. I'm willing to admit in a hypothetical sense that we might have caused global temperatures to go up or down a fraction of a degree, but that is jack shit compared to other changes that occured independently from our supposed interference. For all intents and purposes our contribution to climate change is a spit in the ocean. We should be much more concerned about other stuff that's going on or expected to happen soon. For example did you know that ice ages last a lot longer than the breaks between them? If past data is indicative of what is ahead of us we are currently in a ~12 thousand year pause in between two 100 thousand year ice ages. And we're at the end of that 12 thousand year period, the next ice age could start tomorrow. Many groups including NASA are exploring this subject, it's not a joke or a hoax. And we're distracted by meaningless bullshit arguing how global warming is a huge problem caused by mankind despite global temperatures not rising for the last ~20 years (while CO2 levels have risen by ~10%).

[–]-wabi-sabi- 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]itgscv1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]-wabi-sabi- -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]itgscv1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

When did I say its was my only basis? I've spent a good amount of time looking at the evidence around this topic. Are you saying you don't trust science/experts on a topic that they are specialized in? That's just opening yourself up to accepting things based on faulty arguments and emotional appeals vs facts and evidence.

An argument/position is in fact made stronger by citing papers, studies, science, evidence. Going by your logic we can just throw out everything on both sides of men's issues and just argue based on feelings vs stats from authorities on subjects like dv, sexual assault, etc.

It is not an appeal to authority when referencing actual authorities on a topic. There is no debate in the scientific community on this topic, none, nada, zip, zilch. The actual experts in this field have a 97-98% consensus on climate change. Pretty much the only people arguing against are funded by special interests.

Oreskes, Naomi (2007)

Analysis

National Academies of Science

Surface Temp

Royal Society

1500 of world's most distinguished scientists

IPCC

IPCC Report

2007 Synthesis Report

[–]-wabi-sabi- 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't have as much time as you, and I've obviously hit a "need to believe" topic for you, but basically you just threw out a lot of "see we all agree!"

It is not an appeal to authority when referencing actual authorities on a topic

Yes, it still is an appeal to authority because you are referencing people whose careers depend upon towing the line. It's a lot easier to get 1M for your incremental tweaking of computer models to try and match the data when you say the world might end.

Some thoughts on the consensus: http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/8241/One-Engineers-Perspective-on-Global-Warming.aspx

It's not to say that something isn't happening, but the main point is that is massively more speculative than is let on to the public.

Tldr: scientists are people too, and subject to the same self interests.

[–]itgscv1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Ok. You're an idiot who doesn't care about facts or evidence even when presented with overwhelming evidence. You don't understand how science and peer review work. You link to one engineer trying to talk about a subject in a forum where they are not experts on this subject. I point out that every single national/international science academy/body with actual experts on this subject have a consensus. You are talking a massive global conspiracy by climate scientists by manipulating data, which is patently absurd.

You are making an appeal to authority, hey look at this one engineer. I honestly baffles me how you can have this much cognitive dissonance and be this intellectually dishonest. You're trying to be dismissive with your "need to believe" comment while throwing out fallacies and bad arguments.

You're basically saying you won't accept a scientific consensus if you don't personally FEEL like it's credible, regardless of how much evidence, facts, data, studies, peer reviewed papers are presented. You are basically the equivalent of a person that believes the sun goes around the earth hey we have a scientific consensus about that, but a few people here and there don't agree, look at their arguments.

Do you think we landed people on the moon? The consensus is we did, we have a ton of evidence, data, video, samples, etc. and yet people like you just think we'll that couldn't happen I don't believe it. You are entitled to having your own opinion about anything, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[–]-wabi-sabi- 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MattClark0995 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]itgscv1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bsutansalt 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]liquid_j 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]liquid_j 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]silly_vasily 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]augustfell 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a different way to look at it:

Think of how the media portrays the men's rights movement and men's issues. Do they do a very good job of showing what you and others actually believe, or are they creating a caricature by showing the worst they can find and otherwise distorting information?

Now stop and realize that these same people who are misrepresenting you and the men's rights movement are the same people who are reporting on climate issues. You know these people who have an obvious agenda and ax to grind when it comes to gender issues because of how they treat you and the rest of us. Do you think they don't have an obvious agenda and ax to grind when it comes to other issues?

You can believe what you want about climate change or any other issue, but if you trust the media and "what everyone knows" and write people off as not being credible because they are "deniers" without looking into their arguments and hearing their reasoning, you're no better than the people that dismiss the men's rights movement and say we're not credible because we're a bunch of butthurt losers who are angry at women.

[–]MasterZapple 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi_win 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFandAM 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]augustfell 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tygertiger 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Macismyname 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MonkeyCB 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Lauren Souther of Rebel media, the girl who held up the sign at the Slut Walk is doing an AMA
Author	Macismyname
Upvotes	184
Comments	64
Date	June 14, 2015 9:08 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/39ubs5/lauren_souther_of_rebel_media_the_girl_who_held/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/lauren-souther-of-rebel-media-the-girl-who-held-up.977609 https://theredarchive.com/post/977609

Comments