I'll say up front that this is about as epic of a rant as I'll ever get. In other words, not too epic.
I frequent some of the mixed ideology sites and / or blogs, and I often can't help but getting sucked into the discussion and / or working on debunking claims by more conservative posters. However, sometimes I really just question whether it's even worth the effort, considering the vitriol and accusations of being condescending I get back in exchange for reason and an reliance on scientific fact.
For instance, I'm knees deep in a debate regarding the global warming debate. I'm keep posting and posting and posting rebuttals, and all I get out is "well, it snowed in Virginia, therefore global warming isn't real". And repeated questions of "it doesn't pass the sniff test that emissions from the US and Europe are causing the poles to get warmer and not the US or Europe", etc. There's a willful misunderstanding of each and every argument, to the point where I have to begin to wonder, is it worth it? Is the pursuit and dissemination of the truth even worth it, in the face of such a refusal to see the truth? Is it worth linking 100 times to the same pages debunking the same recycled claims? It's times like that when I begin to sympathize more with Michael Mann and others, who spend each and every day putting up with the bullshit thrown at them by the skeptics.
This cartoon is rather apt. All of the skeptics have their rulers and are using them.
And, when we start pointing out to them the many scientific mistakes / inaccuracies being used, what happens? I get accused of being a liberal elitist who's been condescending! That's right, the truth is condescending (in addition to having a well-known liberal bias). Good science is apparently condescending. The earth being 4 billion years old is only an opinion, not fact (yes, I was told this today). Hard scientific data? Merely opinions, in their view. Yet, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, and others' treatment of liberals? No, that's not condescending. That's just speaking the truth. Fucking hypocrisy.
Then, it gets even worse, to the point of absolute absurdity. I note that I like my policy decisions to be based on sound science, and that it's frustrating when the science is misused or misconstrued or misunderstood, etc. What do I get in return? "Hitler and Himmler used the accepted science of the day in their eugenics". WTF? I mean, seriously? Just because I want to use good science, I'm like Hitler? Good lord. Hitler peed standing up too. Does that make me a bad person? Should I sit down to pee now? Where does it end? Even for Godwin's Law, this one's a stretch. Besides, eugenics already was being debunked even before the Nazi use of it. And, it isn't like I'm saying that we should exterminate any people because the earth is getting hotter. Geesh.
(Suggestions for how to be a better ranter accepted!)