Crap from Facebook: December 3rd, 2020

 https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10216050605595463&set=pcb.10216050608755542

 It's just a series of "tweets." So I'll transcribe it...

Hey everyone I'm a clown and I just got back from facepainting at a picnic and here's my take on male violence in America:

It starts young. And it's more than just letting boys play with guns, it's how we shame them for feeling anything that isn't anger.

A 4yo boy asked me to paint a blue butterfly on his face. Then his mom told me, "no, he doesn't want that."

"Butterflies are beautiful, he said that's what he wants, shouldn't I paint what he wants?"

"No give him something for boys"

She turns to dad, a big guy in a jersey, and says accusingly, "Do you want your son to have a butterfly on his face. He says "No."

Which, cool, let's bring your husband's masculinity into it too. Because your 4yo kid needs to know that his father would be ashamed too

I really tried you guys, but this woman was so scared of her son wanting a butterfly she made me paint a skull and crossbones on his cheek.

When I finished the skull I said to kiddo "You want a little blue butterfly too?" He nods. Mom interrupts "You didn't ask me."

I say in my kindest fuck you voice "Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was for HIM."

"I'm his MOTHER. You need to ask me." She says.

"SORRY." I say and wave goodbye to the kid. And I am. I'm sorry that he is not allowed to love something as beautiful and miraculous as a ☒

I'm sorry that he was shamed for wanting to share in the joy that is the miracle and wonder of nature.

I see this all the time. And I feel really bad for these boys, because the girls don't get it as bad. Being a tomboy is slightly more normalized

And when girls want skulls or sharks the parents shrug and laugh like "haha she's a kooky kid!" Because maleness and masculinity isn't a sin

But when a boy wants to enjoy something for its beauty, they are told it's not for them. Not in this house. Not in this family.

We are teaching them that anger and violence r the only things they are allowed to experience. That to value beauty and elegance is shameful

I know that it was just facepaint, but that's sort of my point. Why in the hell are these parents shaming their boys over FACEPAINT

Honestly don't even get me started on the balloons.

So the next time you are incredulous about how the govt could shut down our national parks, or build the pipeline, or nuke the planet...

Think about what this four year old boy asked for ☒

And what he got [pictured here is what looks like a yellow ISO hazard sign with a skull and crossbones, something Twitter apparently uses as an emoji or whatever; don't ask me because I'm not tech-savvy]

Epilogue: the mom complained to my boss ☒ [pictured here is a pink box with the symbol for Venus inside]

About halfway through this, I had the sinking realization that I was probably going to make another "Crap from Facebook" post here, and I tried to just dismiss that and tell myself that this wasn't worth my time. By the time I got to the "nuke the planet" part I had shifted to thinking that this crap is totally worth my time because it's surreal in its confident stupidity. This is the sort of crap that motivated me to start doing "Crap from Facebook" posts in the first place.

I've tried to accurately preserve all the typographical mistakes in my transcription, but I'm out of practice at that sort of thing and caught myself repeatedly typing what I interpreted as the correct versions of the original. I went back and un-fixed what I did catch, but I can't be sure that it's 100% transcribed. Anyway, the inconsistencies in punctuation drove me crazy. But let's try to be a mature adult and look past that. I guess if the link keeps working, you can just use that. I've noticed that a lot of these posts have broken links when I go back and look at them later, so I tried.

There are several issues here. There's the fact that the author thinks her experience painting kids' faces gives her some profound insight into grave social ills such that this warrants broadcasting her anecdote and her analysis of it to everyone on the planet. There's the fact that the author believes she can connect her own story involving no violence whatsoever to violence all across the country. There's the fact that the author, in her own version of this story, relates her own rude behavior and use of a "fuck you voice" at a customer, and then expresses derision at how the customer complained to her boss about it. There's the conflation of shutting down parks or building a pipeline with "male violence." But I want to move past all that and zero in on the big issue here. That other stuff is bad, but mostly it just displays a lot of cues about the author's personality and way of thinking.

What we have here is a banal anecdote related entirely by the author. She was in full control of the narrative. She could have changed or emphasized whatever details she wanted. Or if she wanted to be entirely truthful and this particular story didn't suit her purposes, she could have chosen a different anecdote. This was her choice. Everything written here was hers. And for "male violence in America" she chose a story about the behavior of a woman. No violence took place in the story. The kid's father was present and basically didn't even do anything. The mother is 100% the antagonist of the author's narrative.

At the risk of being repetitive, I want to make sure this sinks in, how surreal it is. I was expecting another "toxic masculinity" rant about the behavior of some man. Instead, I found out that the only villain in the story was a woman. It was all a woman. And the author didn't even acknowledge or account for that. She managed to write a little story about behavior by a woman, and just connected it to "male violence." I was waiting for it like a punchline, some inkling of a realization. It was right there in front of her.

1. Premise: male violence is caused by the stunted emotional growth of young boys.
2. Premise: bad mothers stunt the emotional growth of their boys.
3. Conclusion: ???

And of course, she never got there. Oh well. Never send a clown to do a lepidopterist's job.

Crap from Facebook: November 20th, 2020

ALSO: if you don’t make your living thru s*x work & s*xy work, consider toning down the free thirst trap shit. Sure, your ego might get a temporary dopamine boost, but you are also contributing to the mass psychological expectation of free content. Consider the impact your ego’s needs has on others around you, k thx bai.

Normally I wouldn't even bother with something like this, but the novelty of it took me by surprise. I mean, I don't even have anything clever to say about it. I thought, "I'll make some witty rejoinder" and I seem to be tapped out. Like, I could make fun of this person for censoring the word "sex" or for thanking others for doing something that they assuredly will not do. But that just feels kind of bland. I guess the part that interests me enough to actually preserve it on my blog is the notion that if someone else is giving away for free what you're trying to sell, that person should consider how such behavior hurts your business. Like, what's the journey someone takes to get to that point without being overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance?

Presidential candidates and my dad

This could be a bit of a weird one. Tomorrow is the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. I might have already thrown my vote away by voting for a third party or whatever, but in case you need a reminder, the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I don't like either of them, but that's not a particularly unique or interesting position for me to espouse. And I'm not here to complain about them. Both men have drawn their share of criticism and will doubtless continue to do so. But I thought it might make for a decent blog post to use these two assholes as a springboard to suddenly tell two stories about growing up with my dad.

I suspect it's a common curse to be drawn to some endeavor one is unsuited for. In my case, I have always been fixated on skills to make things, to build something, to create. It's a happy coincidence that I am introspective enough to realize that I have zero talent for such things. My one conceit is my insistence on maintaining my own delusion that I am a writer. But I'll always have a kind of quiet, background envy for all artists, engineers, and artisans. I think being able to make stuff is just about the coolest thing ever. It's also something I'm downright bad at. Well, in my dad's case, he's drawn to salesmanship and business. When I was a kid, he dreamed of running his own business. Later in life, he bounced around in several sales jobs, but could never make it work. Either he lacks my faculty for introspection or I lack his faculty for boldness, but he's chased his futile sales dream numerous times. It's never worked out for him. He's not a good salesman. He wants to be, but that's not how these things work. People who don't know him well sometimes think that he'd be a good salesman because he's boisterous, assertive, and persistent. But those character traits aren't actually what makes someone a good salesman. I forget when I first realized the nature of my dad's plight, but I've have some understanding of this for a long, long time.

In my dad's failed forays into the business world, he latched on to Donald Trump's Art of the Deal. My dad's enthusiasm for Donald Trump was a point of annoyance for me growing up. I mean, it was probably a pretty minor point of annoyance and I think most sons find things about their fathers to gripe about. My dad's weird, misplaced admiration for Donald Trump's shady real estate dealings was a pretty minor source of conflict between us, compared to some other things. But it did leave me hating Donald Trump and his stupid face since around the time I was 11 years old. So in 2016 when Donald Trump's presidential campaign was in the news cycles, I just kept waiting for this all to blow over. So yeah. If you're reading this and you're critical of Donald Trump and his actions as president, just understand that I'll never empathize. Whatever it says about me, I'll never be able to bring myself to care more about Trump's role in governance and the consequences thereof than I'll care about how baffled I was that the personification of my dad's delusions of a life in the business world had somehow come to life and gotten elected president. It was surreal. It still is. It's like working at a job where your boss is literally the villain out of your favorite cartoon as a kid. Even if it turns out to be a miserable job, the weirdness just overrides all that.

I've told some form of that first story to a couple of people. But here's one I've never told anyone. In the mid-90's, two of my mom's close relatives died: her half-sister at the age of 17 of bone cancer and her grandfather at the age of 79 (I think) from Alzheimer's disease. I'm don't really have close relationships with most of my mom's family and I generally have positive impressions of most of them, but they did something here that I don't approve of: they tried to keep me and my younger siblings insulated from the matters surrounding these illnesses and impending deaths. This pissed my dad off and he wasn't having any of it. Since I don't remember (if I did know) and haven't inquired, I can't really be sure what role my mom took in this, whether she sided with my dad right away or whether it took some convincing. But I have to give credit to my dad here. At least in part it was because of him that I got to be there and have some memories of those family members before they died. I can't remember the exact timing too well. I think that I was somewhere in the age range between 8 and 11 throughout both of those cases. Although my younger sister remembers being frustrated at how our family initially hid our aunt's cancer from us, and that frustration influenced her later, I don't think she really remembers that it was our dad who fought against that, nor that he did the same thing in the case of our great-grandfather's Alzheimer's disease.

Watching my great-grandfather's decline was unpleasant, but I remain grateful that I got to see what I did. If you've heard people talk about dementia patients in their families before, all I've got for this one is more of the same. Or rather, I suppose I have less of the same, since we were living about a thousand miles away at the time and I only got a handful of visits with my great-grandfather during this time. I guess one thing I'll note that stuck with me was how even though all the adults tried to explain the memory loss aspect to me, they didn't explain (probably because they didn't know how) the various quirky side effects of advanced dementia. I remember when my great-grandfather was in the nursing home and was being pushed in a wheelchair, that he saw a rug on the floor and remarked on it without understanding that it was a rug on the floor. I gathered from the conversation that he knew he was in a wheelchair and he knew that someone was pushing him in that wheelchair. He seemed to, at that time, recognize the people around him. But in his mind, this rug on the floor was some kind of impassable obstacle, and he believed that the nurse pushing his wheelchair would not be able to traverse it. I scrutinized that rug looking for clues as to why it would seem so different to him. Whenever I see dementia patients, I inevitably compare them to those childhood memories of my great-grandfather. I have a mild fascination with the subject. That probably sounds morbid. Oh well. Anyway, my observation of dementia patients as an adult has been different, albeit not as formative for me, I suppose. My biggest takeaway, since I was in high school really, has been that a big difference between my great-grandfather's case and most other cases I've seen is how rapid his decline was. In every way, from his memory to his motor skills, my great-grandfather's nervous system took a plunge. In most cases, it isn't over so quickly.

I am convinced that Joe Biden is suffering from some form of dementia. I can't prove it, and I'm not a medical professional. This isn't a diagnosis. But I've seen enough of his televised behavior to convince me of this. And I find it alarming that he's being fielded as a presidential candidate. That's separate from other things about him, or it should be. Whatever anyone thinks of him as a person, of his conduct as vice president, of his lengthy career as a senator, of his accomplishments, or of his controversies, pushing someone whose brain is falling apart on him to take a role as top executive in the country is disgusting. He's projected to win. And if that happens, Joe Biden in his current condition becoming president in 2020 surprises me even more than Donald Trump becoming president in 2016.

Either way, all of this crap reminds me of my dad.

How to lose an argument (dissection of some fun with YouTube comments)

I never post here enough, so here's something a little different. Last week, I had an interaction in a YouTube video comment section that was unremarkable, but it left me thinking, "I should throw that on my blog as an example of how to lose an argument." Well, I didn't do that right away, but it's been less than a week and I can still find the stupid thing, so let's go for it.

First, some context. For the past few years, I've been involved and invested in the unofficial EDH or "Commander" format of Magic: the Gathering. I'd played it off and on since about 2009, but shifted a lot of my focus to it around 2017. Partway into last year, my local game store started a weekly Commander League and I brought a new deck to almost every meetup, for a total of 41 appearances in 2019. I'd been planning to beat that in 2020, but some kind of pandemic got in the way. However, I've still been playing a lot of Commander and spending a lot of time on Commander-related stuff. Earlier this month, Wizards of the Coast sold a controversial product aimed at selling mostly mediocre cards, themed around a television show (The Walking Dead), to Commander players for an exorbitant price. Although EDH is technically supposed to be an unofficial format, regulated by a "Rules Committee" that doesn't answer to Wizards of the Coast, there's a lot of money in the format. Wizards of the Coast made an exceedingly lousy product marketed blatantly to EDH players, propelled by fear of missing out. The response from the community has been, almost universally, that this product is bad. People hate it. And a lot of them went to the Rules Committee seeking intervention. This was a doomed endeavor: the Rules Committee is rather toothless and had never taken a stand against Wizards of the Coast before, nor could they really be expected to.

All of this led to a cascade of developments an internet drama, which I took some interest in. There's a popular YouTube channel called "The Command Zone" and it seems that the viewers of this channel solicited commentary on these current events. I don't know a lot about this channel and it's not one I follow closely, but I've watched some of their content before, with mixed reactions. I knew though, that since one of the people involved is on the "Commander Advisory Group" affiliated with the Rules Committee, that the commentary in the video would be about as toothless as what the Rules Committee put out. Also, the most popular content by these guys is sponsored by Wizards of the Coast. And on top of all that, pretty much everything about this channel, for as long as I've been aware of them, has been sponsored by Ultra Pro, which itself is massively entrenched with Wizards of the Coast. This isn't a criticism of "The Command Zone." I'm just being realistic. I knew right away that these guys couldn't very well throw away their business connections for the sake of taking a stand against WotC's latest cash-grab. It would be silly to even ask them to do that. YouTube people with nothing to lose called this bullshit out for what it was. Professionals who rely on their relationship with the company that made the bad product didn't dare. Not terribly shocking. But I watched the video anyway.

You can see the video for yourself here, if you want to. It's long. They like to make long videos. Anyway, I don't think that they said much of interest one way or another, and there weren't really any surprises. One thing that I did find pathetic was the deflection of blame away from WotC and toward random strangers on the internet. These guys brushed off the issues that the community had complained about and insisted that the real problem was how rude some unspecified people in the community might have been in correspondence with the Rules Committee and with WotC. I bring this up not because it's interesting or surprising, but because it's what I found myself, indirectly, arguing with an idiot about. In order to change the subject away from the myriad issues with what WotC had done, the front-man for The Command Zone made the ludicrous comparison to ordering a cheeseburger at a restaurant and specifying that you don't want tomatoes on it, but the restaurant giving you tomatoes anyway. Unspecified criticism from presumably powerless individuals was then likened to "killing the chef" over tomatoes. This metaphor was pretty stupid and was rightfully called out in the comment section by numerous people before I even watched the video. So, well done there.

We're almost done with context, I promise. Someone in the comment section tried to turn the metaphor back on the creators of the video with this line...

"My friend's son is deathly allergic to tomatoes. So that burger analogy is perfect - just because it doesn't affect you that badly, doesn't mean it's not that important for others."

And that's where my interlocutor comes in with this statement.

Cool. It's still insane to go out and beat the cook to death

And yes, even if your kid has a severe allergy, it's not OK to beat a cook to death for a dangerous mistake. But no one did that. If we're holding true to an analogy here, what would have actually happened would have been more like if you saw the tomatoes, complained about the tomatoes, and then the restaurant ignored you and you ate the tomatoes anyway. I mean, that's not perfect, but it's an improvement. When bad analogies are used in a disingenuous manner, it gets my attention. So I chimed in.

Holy shit, did a WotC employee get beaten to death over this?

 

Just a nice, gentle prod at first to rein things in. Because if you're smart, you'll catch my drift: no one was actually beaten to death. That's not on the table. Stop comparing non-issues to life-or-death issues. It's bad and everyone knows it's bad. You've been called out on it. A savvy individual might be able to walk the statement back and redirect the conversation away from the notion that comparing alleged mean words on the internet with beating someone to death is inherently a pretty messed up thing to do. I didn't point it out explicitly here. Not yet. Because I was being nice. Alternatively, I was giving my interlocutor enough rope to hang himself or herself with. Anyway, this person was oblivious to my calculated use of tact and jumped right to.

 

Google "analogies"

 

At this point, I was mostly annoyed at the combination of the omission of terminal punctuation being combined with the nonstandard use of a company name as a verb. I got the point that this was supposed to be an imperative sentence. "I am instructing you to use the Google search engine on the word 'analogies' and to examine the search results." But I quickly brushed that off. My interlocutor was throwing out bait anyway. There wasn't an genuine impression that I didn't understand what an analogy was. The idea was that I'd get all huffy over being told to just Google it, that I'd been a dummy and failed to understand that something was an analogy.

 

When someone shows up to a discussion and immediately throws you a freebie, as I did, that says something about the person you're dealing with. If you pay attention, you can ascertain that it is a freebie and consider what this means and how to respond. But if you're intent on losing an argument, you could respond by trying an indirect insult in order to bait an aggressive response.

 

Since I was not, up to this point, sufficiently insulted, I kept on being charitable. I gave my interlocutor another chance to clarify things, to frame the issues in some desired context.

Exactly what thing is it you're saying is analogous to beating someone to death?

 

I don't find it appealing to go right for steel traps in discourse. What I've presented so far is an easily escapable trap. For instance, my interlocutor could have fallen back on the stereotype of internet drama to involve death threats. A lot of prominent YouTubers have complained about death threats. Now, no claims of death threats were even made in the video, nor did I see any in the surrounding context, but invoking the concept of the threat of death at least adds some element dire enough to potentially justify murder-themed analogies. That's one path out of my lazy trap. There are others. My interlocutor didn't immediately make the worst possible blunder, which would have been to try resorting to insults as bait again. But the response I got was still pretty bad, perhaps even worse than I'd been expecting.

 

Lawsuiting WotC. Demanding the RC of commander to ban those cards. The analogy is that it's an exagerated reaction to a wrong doing.

 

At this point, I learned that I was in an argument with the sort of person who uses "lawsuit" as a verb. Now, the good news for me here is that I have absolutely no compunctions toward the popular notion that "punching down" is bad. I'll punch as far down as I damn well please, and that's my business. However, I do have standards. The original line in the video might have been dissembling. But the person who regurgitated it here didn't appear to have the capacity for proper dissembling. So I felt obligated to be as fair as possible, even to err on the side of generosity a little bit. But it was also time to stop being all Socratic about this and to draw the line, to make it clear just what was being challenged. That way, when my interlocutor lost an argument, it would be over something I'd actually bothered to define.

Well I totally disagree with that. Saying words at people isn't analogous to killing them, and I'm comfortable calling such a comparison disingenuous.

I have no idea what lawsuit you're talking about, but lawsuits are also not really analogous to premeditated murder.

 

I've done two things at once with this response, because I think that's not too overwhelming for most people. I've made the point that the word "analogy" isn't some kind of linguistic catchall to make any statement right. Framing something as an analogy when the details are not analogous is, at best, confusing or, at worst, dishonest. While doing that, I've also seized control of the argument by challenging the fiction of a lawsuit. Not only was there no lawsuit involved with this issue, but no one else had even made the claim that there was. Instead of just calling out my interlocutor as a liar, I forced the issue to be about one thing and one thing only.

To this person's credit, splitting one argument (which you're losing) into multiple arguments can indeed be a way to avoid losing an argument. It was the first intelligent move I'd seen my interlocutor make, but it's also a tactic I'm well acquainted with. So I shut it down right away. Sometimes people who are losing arguments take a second bite at the tactic of forking the issue. In this case, at least my interlocutor had the sense to shift to another approach: reframing the argument to contend that I was obligated to defend a claim I'd never actually made.

yeah, the point of the analogy wasn't that saying words was as bad as killing. It is that there's such as thing as overreacting. Not that I care much, but to argue against that point you have to explain why it wasn't in fact an overreaction. Not explain why it's not like murder...

While putting your opponent in the position of defending a contention you've chosen yourself is a classic rhetorical trick, it was executed poorly here. My interlocutor has asserted that I have to explain why "it" wasn't an overreaction. What was "it"? In our case, some hypothetical alleged online criticism, exact nature unspecified. I'm keeping track. It's not my fault that someone else isn't. But I'd say that the way to lose an argument here is to try to befuddle someone without realizing that you haven't been paying attention yourself.

 

My next reply was rather blithe and I won't say that it was my best point in the exchange. I got hung up on this issue of overreaction being unspecified. Without paying much attention or trying to remain charitable, I quipped...

 

Comparing something someone said to murder isn't the same as pointing out that overreaction exists.

 

I could try to retroactively pretend that I was forcing the issue of this hypothetical "overreaction" being a vague fiction in the first place. After all, going from "someone somewhere overreacting" to "beat someone to death" is pretty absurd. But really, I was genuinely making a hasty response, rather than this being any sort of clever approach. And a smart person could have used that against me here. I realized this after a few minutes had passed. I thought maybe I'd opened myself up to a solid counterpoint. Maybe something about how if the overreaction hadn't been so severe and disproportionate, that it wouldn't have been brought up in such a manner to begin with, so its egregious nature ought to be taken for granted? I don't know. There is something of a weakness in the way I approached that comment.

 

There could have been clever ways to turn the tables on me at this point. But my interlocutor didn't seem to notice, instead making two crucial errors.

 

at this point you are just stating things that are wrong and giving no justification. So think whatever you want, I'm out of this conversation

 

The first blunder here is to trot out the "you're not justifying your claims" tactic against someone who isn't making any statement that would apply to. There are rhetorical tactics that can backfire when used on a clever person or one familiar with your tactics, but the tactic of asserting that your opponent needs receipts fails automatically and spectacularly against even a fool if there simply aren't any pertinent contentions for this tactic to stick to. So that's a surefire way to lose an argument.

 

The second blunder, not made directly with this comment but found in the followup, is declaring your exit without actually exiting. Never say, "I'm out of this conversation" if you're going to stay in the conversation. It's always bad for you.

 

I may not balk at punching down, but I'm also not one to beat a dead horse. I could basically say that I'd won at this point and I'd be right. But I had been accused of stating wrong things by my now-declared-absent interlocutor, and stating wrong things is something I take seriously, so I was compelled to ask...

 

What wrong thing did I say?

 

I didn't really expect an answer, and I didn't really get one. But there was a followup from the other person. I think that we were both typing at the same time, so to be fair, I assume that the next part wasn't in response to my question anyway, but in response to other things prior to my question. That's fine.

 

"Comparing something someone said to murder isn't the same as pointing out that overreaction exists" Comparing overreactions to murder is actually a very common trope.  

 

"My mom is gonna kill me for this. You will never find my body"

What does that expression means to you? It basically means that the person's mother is gonna overreact to whatever the person did. Almost never will it actually mean that a mother will kill their child

 

Seriously, if I have to explain this, then I see no point in continuing this conversation

 

It seems that my interlocutor gave the matter some more thought and came up with a tactic that might have been put to better use earlier in the argument. Still, credit is awarded for coming up with it eventually. There is a tenuous connection between the starting point and this other example of a phrase like "my mom is gonna kill me."

 

I was a bit annoyed by this tactic, not because it was difficult to see through or because it was brought out retroactively. Those I could forgive. What bugged me was that a normal and commonplace sort of hyperbole (the one about how "my mom is gonna kill me") was being used to dismiss a totally different instance of hyperbole. It's one thing to compare the prospect of someone allegedly flaming someone else online to beating someone to death in real life. But dismissing any criticism of that comparison by conflating it with "my mom is gonna kill me"? That pisses me off. So now I'm pissed off. And one way to lose an argument is to piss me off. So, having now been rankled, I did what I had to do: I used reason.

 

I agree that someone saying, "My mom is gonna kill me for this" is pretty common and well-understood. Saying something more like, "My mom beat the cook to death" is not. The former is an exaggeration of an expected future response from someone. Mom is going to be mad and the average listener would assume that a fatal outcome isn't sincerely anticipated here. But if the average listener heard, "And then my mom beat the cook to death" the conclusion would probably be the assumption that Mom is a murderer, and not that it was an exaggerated way of saying, "Mom sent the cook a harshly worded email."

 

I saw my reasoning as being unassailable. So I sat back and relished my victory. OK, not really. But I kinda anticipated that the next response would be to change the subject or try to bait me with an insult again. It's not like anyone would seriously dispute my conclusion that "My mom beat the cook to death" would be taken in a very different light from "My mom is gonna kill me." I mean, it's obvious that those two contexts aren't comparable and, oh, nevermind...

 

yeah, no. No one would assume that "and then my mom beat the cook to death" means anything different from "she harshly critiqued him/yelled/ etc." I don't know what kinds of groups you are hanging around, but they seem to be too literal.

 

Ask around and you will see that most people understand the meaning. Specially when listening to commentators, who runitely create new variations of old used expressions.

 

Even if you don't think it's a common use of the expression, it still is clear that's what the commentators meant. Thus, not interpreting their message as intended is using a strawman againt them

 

I guess another way to lose an argument is to hand your opponent victory by spouting blatant falsehoods and pretending that no one will notice.

 

Probably the main thing that inspired me to throw this exchange on my blog was my amusement on seeing that someone would concoct a new colloquial expression midway through an argument, then try to assert that anyone who isn't familiar with this totally legitimate colloquialism has just lived a cloistered life or something. It's a fascinatingly stupid technique, and I can only assume that it was meant to be a distraction, something so absurd I had to respond to it, which would shift the argument.

 

But the way to really, thoroughly lose an argument in this case is to forget what it was about in the first place. My interlocutor had started out stating that beating someone to death would be a disproportionate (insane) response to the hypothetical disregard of a dietary restriction. Because I took issue that that scenario being used as an analogy, the argument moved enough that he or she forgot where we'd started and had, in an attempt to throw me off, tried to pretend that "beating someone to death" just meant criticizing harshly, that it was hyperbole and I was taking it too literally. So I pointed that out.

 

I don't actually believe that "to beat someone to death" is a common colloquial expression meaning "to criticize harshly" and that I've just somehow missed out on that my entire life because of "groups I hang around with." I don't buy that for one second and I don't think that you seriously expect me to. But hypothetically, if that were the case, then what's the issue in your initial scenario? If the cook wasn't literally beaten to death, but was merely berated for making a dangerous error, then what's the problem? You said that it would be insane. Why? What's insane about that? 

 

I'd think that this was where it became a no-win scenario for this poor fool. Once I pointed out that the hastily concocted fiction of "beat to death" being a slang term for "harshly criticize" clashed with the original implications of it being "insane to go out and beat the cook to death" there was no longer any way to turn this around.

Of course, my interlocutor had to drag it on a little longer before giving up. So here came one last desperate Hail Mary of bullshit.

Boy, you keep saying things without providing the least bit of evidence. Do I really have to search for a few mainstream examples of people using "gutting someone" or "destroying" or "killing someone" to be the equivalent of harsh criticism?
"Jordan Peterson DESTROYS this student"
"Trump gets MURDERED on interview"

Anyway, the cook comparison went completely over your head so I guess I have to explain.
The whole point of the commentators is that the response to the Secret Lair by the community is exaggerated and destructive.
They don't state that the Secret Lair was right but that the response is too much.

To illustrate how there can be such a thing as Person A does wrong but Person B over punishes person A, they make the comparison to the murdered chef. Which is a pretty intuitive comparison to me, btw.

But apparently where you get confused is by replying "but we are not killing anyone" because apparently you don't get that the problem with the murdered chef scenario is that "murder is an absolutely over the top punishment for this crime" and not just "murder is wrong"

You might as well be replying "but Wotc is not a chef and I wouldn't take out my tomatoes"
It's a reply that just misses the point

 

Yikes. I already thought that the argument was unsalvageable, but this was like "Losing the Argument Madlibs."

• Insulting me hasn't baited me so far, but better go all Foghorn Leghorn and call me "Boy" just to maintain that air of condescension. ✓
• I'd pointed out that "beat to death" really isn't slang for any kind of verbal criticism. The "my mom is gonna kill me" comparison got quashed, but throw out more examples of things that aren't the phrase "beat to death" anyway. If one example isn't relevant, maybe three will be! ✓
• Change the subject. ✓
• Double down on the contention that I'm just too obtuse to get it. ✓
• After having accused me of employing a strawman, make up a fake argument and then attribute it to me. ✓

Not that I don't like to argue (clearly I do), but I'm not necessarily going to just get dragged into a rematch by someone who just got so decisively outclassed. It was the other person who made an assertion (X would be insane). I'm going to hold the argument to that. If there'd be an explicit concession of that point, then fine. But we're not just going to move on to unrelated topics until then.

If there's some claim I made that requires supporting evidence, please let me know. I'm not seeing any such claims.

Now, don't change the subject. No one said anything about "gutting" "destroying" or Donald Trump. Your exact words were "It's still insane to go out and beat the cook to death."

And I didn't say, "but we are not killing anyone." I don't know who "we" are supposed to be in this scenario. Nor did I say, "but WotC is not a chef." Don't put words in my mouth.

To reiterate, if "beat to death" is purportedly just an expression referring to to verbal criticism, then what's the problem? You said that it would be insane. And literally beating a chef to death over such an incident would be insane, I'd agree. But since you're now contending that "beat to death" doesn't mean "beat to death", what's the issue?

I was ready for more absurdity, for tripling down, for more accusations and insults. But my admonition actually worked. The other person actually addressed what I was saying, or tried to.

the issue is that the reaction to the secret lair is an overreaction.

If we'd already been discussing some actual example of someone's reaction to the underlying issue, then this could have been a potential way to bring the argument back around to that. The problem is that our argument had demonstrably started with a generic "it's insane to beat someone to death." There was no reaction to point to. So this was kind of a doomed comeback. For a given reaction someone else provided to this Secret Lair issue, I'd either agree that it's insane or I'd disagree. But there had never been a "given reaction" for us to argue about. So I asked the only question I could ask.

Whose reaction are you talking about?

The next response cracked me up and definitely made this whole exchange worth it all on its own.

watch the video again and pay attention please. I'm done with being trolled

To reiterate: we had not actually been discussing the video. We'd been discussing a comment someone else made, based on a line said in the video. Neither of had, at any point, addressed the video in our argument. So it's way too late for that little change-of-subject. But the really satisfying part was this enterprising individual protesting that I'm the one doing the trolling when this person invented a fake slang term and then tried to pretend I was obtuse for never having heard of it. Glorious.

I didn't really need to respond to such delightful self-destruction. But just to be thorough and get some closure, I did respond to the singular grain of pertinence in all this.

Your comment, which I was responding to, wasn't in the video. So why would I rewatch the video?

That was the last word, but hey, it was more than enough. I guess I love "punching down."

 

January 11, 1948 – September 17, 2020

Terry Goodkind died last week. I thought that I had never posted about him on this blog before, but I checked and found a post from 2016. Although it wasn't an incredibly lengthy post, I was surprised at how much I'd said there. It looks like I wrote that back when he'd only published 18 books (I said 17 at the time, but I'm counting 18 published before 2016 now and cannot discern the discrepency), but he'd go on to do 14 more, having been especially active these past few years. I read them all.

I want to find something substantial to say about those 32 books. And when I started this post, I thought that I could. But I'm not finding the words. Perhaps later.

Rejection issues

I wrote a blog entry about the CPA after it got hacked earlier this year. I'm still there, of course. A year ago, the site owner moved it onto a new server and was forced to get rid of the other, disused parts of the site. This meant we lost our "front page" and all of our articles. I'd already kind of been shifting my "articles" to forum posts anyway, because the front page was so dilapidated. This was a bunch of amateur long-form Magic: the Gathering content. I explored various styles and topics. The most consistent portion of my Magic articles was probably my series, "The Comboist Manifesto." That series has been on indefinite hiatus for a long time, although I did make a brief return to it in December of last year. This has been kind of a sloppy introductory paragraph, but I needed to establish some background. Over the years, I've dabbled in writing articles on topics in Magic: the Gathering. Mostly, this has been confined to the CPA, something I blogged about back in March. That's pretty much it.

There's another Magic site I've been frequenting a lot: EDHrec. Even though I've stuck to my conviction that EDH should just be a fun twist on Magic and not the primary way to play it, I've been rather focused on EDH exclusively for quite some time, as it's the most conveniently accessible way I have to play with the cards I want to play. It has perturbed me that I'm so invested in a format that I see as inherently a kind of side-show, not the main event. But I don't blame EDH for that! No, that's on me. And I do play EDH a lot. Well, I especially played it a lot before all the game stores got shut down due to a pandemic. And EDHrec has been a helpful resource there.

EDHrec publishes articles. I've enjoyed some of them. They put out a call for writers, specifically for "prospective authors who have an idea for a series of articles with a central theme." And I had a central theme I really liked. At first, I balked at writing my Magic-themed stuff anywhere other than the CPA. I also paused at the awareness that musing about this passion project was different from committing to some kind of regular schedule of unpaid labor to see it through. I mean, I used to schedule my CPA content, but lately, everything there has been a lot like what I write here: on a whim. So I gave the matter some thought. Then I decided that I really wanted to do it. The more I thought about it, the more I liked my theme and thought that it would really stand out on EDHrec.

Well, my pitch was rejected. And I can say that the rejection was quite sensible. I sold myself on how cool my concept for an article series would be, how different it would be from what was already on the site. If I were an editor for some publication and someone wanted to create a series that was markedly different from what we usually put out, I'd probably be inclined to reject such a proposal. So really, I think I got ahead of myself on this one. It's quite debatable whether the primary consideration here is that my proposal really was too off-the-wall for the publisher I was contacting or whether I just pitched it poorly. Maybe it was a bit of both. But either way, my proposal was rejected. Like most "no thanks" letters, the response was kind. In fact, it was better than merely kind. The editor not only explained why this concept wasn't a good fit for their site, but offered that if I had a different idea that would fit their needs, I should let them know. It was a solid response and a good way to handle a writing proposal.

My problem is that I don't handle rejection very well. This isn't some preamble to a story about how I behaved badly. I didn't actually do anything. I accepted it and moved on. I didn't lash out. I didn't respond at all. I don't mishandle rejection in some kind of loud or violent way. But I obsess over it. I take things personally when I really shouldn't, and my mind runs wild over benign details. There was really nothing in that email worth getting upset over. And yet I managed to get upset anyway. It's an unhealthy response and it's a personality flaw I don't like about myself. I just don't know how to make it go away.

The more I look back on my unhealthy attitude toward polite, impersonal rejection, the more I worry that it's probably been very bad for me in the long run. Dammit, I hate this about myself. But I don't know how to fix it.

Why we never give in

Over the years, in many spaces, I've let controversial arguments run on between other parties without overtly conveying my passion for one side or another. And when I do decide to dispute something, it's typically the case that some people who know me to one extent or another, often not very well at all, take it upon themselves to judge my attitude. It's a pet peeve of mine: people changing the subject in an argument to be me, and how I'm purportedly rude, disingenuous, ignorant, disinterested, or just plain not taking things seriously. It's baffling. The idea that mere acquaintances or strangers would have better insight into my own attitude than I would is so absurd that, when I was younger, I just didn't even know how to deal with this kind of change of subject. Like a lot of  rhetorical tricks, it's surprisingly difficult to combat it in the heat of the moment when you first run into it, but trivially easy to defeat if you're keenly aware of what's going on.

I'm reminded of the first time I stopped just being annoyed with this crap, not knowing what to do, and started to punch back. It was as easy as calling it out. I believe it was this exchange, which I've found, still preserved online, in a discussion about gay marriage. This was way back in 2008. I'd gone back and forth with this guy and he'd made many spurious claims, which I always tried to address. And then he dropped this line...

 you obviously want to argue for the sake of argument - you aren't contributing to the discussion at all by disputing virtually everything typed here. People call me a devil's advocate, but I now know someone worse.

Probably the fact that it was an online, written discussion helped. When someone had pulled the "you're just a jerk" card before that, I don't remember doing a great job of countering it. But I'd grown wiser. So I called it out. Nothing grandiloquent or revolutionary. Just called it out. I responded...

This is a trap. You say that I "obviously" want to argue for the sake of argument. If I dispute this claim, I provide support because I'm arguing with you about me wanting to argue. If I don't dispute it, I leave it standing and it makes it look like something I can't refute.

And that was it. The discussion continued after that with other people, but there was a kind of tacit agreement (with just one person doing so vocally) with my callout. My assessment that "you obviously just want to argue for the sake of the argument" was a trap seemed sensible enough, and everyone involved accepted that and moved on. I don't want to speak harshly of my interlocutor in this case. It was a long time ago and, although I never met him IRL and haven't heard from him in a few years, I did respect him and we had much better discussions on other topics after that little standoff was a distant memory. But I do think that it helped me to grow, in a way.

So I was reminded of that, and it was important enough to jot down here on this blog thing. But it's not why I started this post. So, where was I? Let's see, I was on the topic of people changing the subject in an argument to be about my own attitude, instead of whatever the issue at hand had been before. Often, this happens when I quibble over definitions. Well, definitions are important. And people know they're important. But most people don't want to bother going to the trouble to defend their definitions. So I think that the reason people resort to the "you're just being an ass" line of argument is that it's an easy way out.

If your whole argument relies on the acceptance of your definition of some term like "nature" or "secular" or "racism" and I call your definition into question, it might seem like a lot more work to construct a robust case for why your definition is right than it would be to just sideline me. I'm a troublemaker. I quibble over definitions. If I can just be dealt with, then all that work can be passed over.

Of course, this is bigger than just me. Always has been. Another favored rhetorical technique, one that has blossomed to achieve seemingly unprecedented importance in this strange era of social media, is simple repetition. I am bombarded on YouTube and on Facebook, by content that is nothing more than repeated assertions of definitions of terms, meant to solidify those definitions. Repetition is the bluntest of instruments, but it can be very powerful. Never give in.

Here's why we never give in. One easy way to get on the fast-track to ruining your life is to give power over yourself to the figments of other people's imaginations. Don't do it. Your own internal demons are held in-check by the defenses you've built up throughout your life. You've acquired tolerance to that which haunts your imagination. Although it's a struggle, you can rein in those monsters. But you cannot take on the boogeymen of others. Fortunately, they can only destroy you if you let them. So don't do that. Never give in.

Mask-mania 2020

Alright, we're doing this. And probably, at some point in the future, I'll look back and find out how this post aged...

So I am a volunteer participating in a study on N95 mask decontamination. It's still pretty early, but I'm hoping that they get useful data from this. It would add just a bit to the body of scientific knowledge when it comes to these things. While the occupational usage and efficacy of protective gear is generally well-studied, there's really not a lot of good scientific information on other attempted applications, such as the long-term use of masks as a prophylactic by the general public. Not a lot of information, but there sure is a lot of enthusiasm. And this crap has really gotten out of control.

Most masks that people are wearing don't do much, if anything at all, to prevent the spread of respiratory infections when worn by healthy people. That's about as succinct a summary as I can get from the available science at this time. Social distancing, on the other hand, is effective. There's very strong evidence to back up both of those statements, but I'm not going to delve into sources here because this is just my personal blog that mostly only I read anyway. You wanna debate? This ain't the place. Whatever. The papers will still be archived in the future anyway. And I don't even have particular ones in mind. The scientific literature on this subject has been pretty consistent.

Notice that I'm not saying, "masks don't work." On the contrary: there are masks manufactured by companies to meet certain certifications. They do meet those certifications (and often exceed them). They do what they were meant to do. And unlike certain public figures who are also respected medical professionals, I'm not about to dissemble on this topic and skirt the issue by noting that there are different types of masks and so the issue is ever so complicated, or whatever. It's not that hard:

• You've got your full-face respirators. Vital for some jobs. Easy to get a good fit/seal, so the air you're breathing came through the intake, and viruses aren't making it in that way through pretty much any kind of filter cartridge. Your exhalation isn't filtered and aerosolized viral particles could totally be coming out through there. So this sort of mask would indeed protect your from SARS-CoV-2 for sure, if used properly. Wouldn't stop you from spreading it, if you had it.
• You've got your half-face respirators with filter cartridges. Not quite as strong of a seal, and your eyes are exposed, so that's one route a virus could getcha. But these do seal well enough to ordinarily filter out particles much smaller than respiratory droplets, so you'd be at least mostly protected. And again, this wouldn't stop you from spreading a virus.
• You've got your certified "dust masks" or whatever you want to call them. Everything from P100 to N95, just pick one. None of them seal nearly as well as a full-face mask, but other than exposed eyes, that doesn't matter too much for our purposes. If the fit is good, then almost all of the air you're breathing is passing through that filter. Some of what you're exhaling might be seeping out the sides, but most of it shouldn't be. Respiratory aerosols with viral particles would be caught in that filter. They're not passing through. So, assuming you're using a well-fitted mask properly, you'd get a measure of protection (not perfect) and you'd be unlikely to contaminate your surroundings if you were infected.
• You've got your multi-layer operating room style masks. These don't seal at all, so when your big old lungs expand and suck in half a liter of sweet, sweet air, it'll go right around that mask without being filtered. That's why your eyeglasses are fogging up, dumbass: you're not protected at all. Now, these masks do serve to catch some of your exhalation and slow it down, especially blocking large droplets of saliva. This does help keep infected people from getting their biohazardous slobber on surfaces, contaminating those surfaces and turning them into what medical-type-people call (and I wish I was making this stupid word up) "fomites."
• You've got single-layer, non-certified stuff that people made for some reason, as well as homemade masks. These are crap and don't protect anyone.

We could break it down further and there are some weird hybrids, but basically, those are the main categories. And nothing I've said about any of them should be controversial. Prior to this year, none of it would have been. Oh, and there's another important thing: if you're sick with a lung infection, you definitely shouldn't be wearing any of the masks covered under those first three bullet points. That could be dangerous for you.

If you're healthy, but working around infected people, the primary type of protection that you should be using is not gear worn on your face, but environmental controls, such as partitions. Personal protective equipment could be used to complement those environmental controls, but doesn't replace them. Equipment would include not just a mask, probably an N95 in this case, but also safety glasses, gloves, and some kind of body covering such as a gown, sleeve covers, or even a full suit. Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 don't go through your skin, and the reason for all that PPE on non-face bodyparts is to deal with fomites. The PPE is used for an interval, then procedurally doffed and discarded, so any potential viral contamination is left behind with it.

But if you're not working around sick people, if your workplace doesn't have environmental controls in place, if you're not trained with PPE chosen to fit the tasks you're performing, or if you aren't following proper hygiene practices for using your PPE, it's not merely unhelpful, but counterproductive. The experts know this and have known it all along. Ordinary, dumb mouthbreathing citizens aren't as keen on such matters, and the stupid "mask everywhere" fad caught on with them way before organizations like the CDC reluctantly obfuscated their previously clear, sensible positions on the matter and started hedging like they were building a damn maze. It's pathetic.

As a creature of myth and legend, an essential worker, I've been commuting to my workplace every weekday this whole time (other than Memorial Day). So I've seen some stuff. I've seen people on the streets...

• ...wearing disposable nitrile gloves.
• ...wearing masks on their foreheads.
• ...wearing masks with their noses exposed.
• ...wearing full-face air-purifying respirators.
• ...wearing masks made of whatever crap they had at home.
• ...wearing masks upside-down.
• ...wearing masks backwards.
• ...wearing masks while driving alone in their own cars.
• ...ignoring social distancing because they're all wearing masks.

Your masks might as well be charm bracelets at this point, for all the good they do you. One argument I've encountered is that even if masks aren't very effective, they might help a little bit and it's worth the cost if it means saving lives. Guess what: the same goes for charm bracelets. Now stop being an idiot. Not only are people too stupid to follow most public health recommendations properly, but you're introducing unecessary cognitive load if you have them focusing on useless PPE. Keep the energy on hand-washing and social distancing. Those things work, and they're not being practiced enough.

Oh, and I'm aware of the notion that masks for the general population are good because they prevent asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) carriers from spreading their infection. Time will probably tell, but this looks sketchy to me. We already know from other viruses that the particles being shed by asymptomatic carriers probably have a very low transmission rate. Just because they're being picked up on an assay doesn't mean they're viable. Also, people who don't have symptoms presumably aren't coughing or sneezing, so they're not ejecting those big infectious droplets that a mask would catch anyway. If they are shedding infectious particles, it's in aerosolized respiratory droplets, and those, as I've mentioned, go right past a flimsy little cloth mask anyway, pushed through by a current exhalation, courtesy of your infected lungs. So don't expect much help on the count.

"But the CDC said..." Nope. Stop. What they did was hedging. Doesn't count.

"You're just a dumb nobody and the experts know more than you do." Sure. They got any scientific research to back up these novel claims?

Some of the same people I've seen tirelessly engage antivaxx lunatics and come prepared with a mountain of sources showing how safe vaccines are have now come full-circle: shaming people for not wearing masks, without having science to back up their claims that the masks even help. And that's just sad.

In a hundred years, people will look back at this epidemic and there'll be some quip about how wearing masks became popular, but the masks were primitive and did not stop the virus. Or perhaps I'm wrong this time. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Belated post I was supposed to write weeks ago about something that happened years ago

Some background to this. I'm friends with my dad on Facebook, but I ignore almost everything from him because it's mostly old jokes I've already seen or political posts that don't interest me. A nonzero factor in my avoidance of whatever crap my dad is posting on Facebook is that a lot of the time, it's been stupid posts about global warming. This was a topic I used to argue with him about a lot, and I got sick of it.

For whatever reason, Fesler is also friends with my dad on Facebook. And he sent me some text messages about how bad the misinformation was that my dad was posting on Facebook. I forget if I saw the stuff my dad was posting, but given the timing, it might have been misinformation about SARS-CoV2. Anyway, I responded with something like, "You follow my dad? Why?" And I was going to follow it up with something longer, but as I started it realized that I didn't want to try to type it all out on my phone. So I just dropped it. This was sometime last month. Well, now I'll say what I was supposed to say back then...

Let me tell you a story. But first, I have to give some background on one of my idols: Harold Urey. I've always been interested in the history of science, and Harold Urey caught my interest back when I was in high school. I think he's probably one of the most important scientists of all time. Even though his accomplishments are generally well-documented and not obscured, his name doesn't seem to come up much at all  in popular culture, which is just a shame. Harold Urey was a badass. He separated deuterium from hydrogen back before anyone really knew what isotopes were or even understood how neutrons worked in the first place. He also worked on other projects to separate isotopes, and data from his experiments was useful to other scientists around the world, some of whom were more famous. Still, his work on deuterium did win him a Nobel prize. He skipped the ceremony because he wanted to be with his pregnant wife. Just snubbed the whole Nobel thing. Incidentally, they'd been refusing to acknowledge his mentor, Gilbert N. Lewis, so there was a kind of justice to it, whether or not he intended it that way.

For whatever reason, Harold Urey is only a footnote in popular history material about the Manhattan Project, but he basically laid the groundwork that made the whole thing possible. Other researchers knew that in order for a uranium bomb to be possible, they'd have to get samples of uranium with more U-235. Natural uranium has very little of it, and not enough to sustain the reaction. It was a problem that no one in the whole world knew how to solve yet. But Harold Urey was the person who'd done the most separating isotopes out of anyone and he'd published papers that made them think maybe he could do it, so they came crying to him. He not only taught them how to enrich uranium, but he taught them multiple pathways to do it. Like, no one else on the planet was able to figure this problem out, so they asked him for help and this one guy starts coming up with different ways to solve the problem. They put him in charge of a bunch of stuff. He actually did work on the Manhattan Project, but left before they'd gotten to part where they could build a working bomb.

Not content to kickstart just one of the most famous research projects in history, Harold Urey also did much of the foundational work on the Apollo Program. 

The place where I've seen his name the most might be the Miller-Urey experiment. And on that one, the real work was done by Stanley Miller. Some of it was based on Harold Urey's work, but Miller had designed and performed the experiment and wrote the paper. So Harold Urey took his own name off of the paper because he wanted it to be better for his student's career.

So in 2007 or so, I was at Green River Community College and had the question come up of how data collected from ice cores could possibly reveal anything about atmospheric temperature: surely the air pockets in the ice were cold as hell and had been the whole time. Getting a record of carbon dioxide concentration seemed reasonable enough, but there'd been a lot of talk about correlating that with temperature. How? I was baffled, so I looked it up. The answer was that air temperature affects the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the air: heavier oxygen gets pooled toward the surface a bit more than lighter oxygen, and the more the atmosphere warms up, the less pronounced this effect becomes. It turned out that this concept was not new and had been understood well before the high-tech ice core analysis stuff that was going on in the 2000's. It was borrowed from work some old-timey scientist did on ocean sediment beds, animal fossils, and on more crude versions of ice cores, all developed based on work that this old-timey scientist had done in the 1940's or 1950's taking barrels of freezing water and measuring oxygen isotope ratios in air bubbles that he'd set up under different conditions. That old-timey scientist was, of course, Harold motherfucking Urey.

I found this all enthralling. And it coincided with the time when I was playing around the most with GRCC's database access to scientific journal articles. So I accidentally wound up reading more scientific papers about ice cores than I did about pretty much any other topic. I probably didn't grasp everything I read, but it might have helped me later on with concepts in chemistry and physics classes.

A few years later, I was riding in a car with my dad. He got on the subject of global warming somehow. Maybe it was something on the radio, but I forget. He had always been vague and inconsistent with his rhetoric about global warming: that it wasn't real, that it was real but it was outside human influence, that it was real but also a good thing. Many of the things I'd heard him say over the years didn't really make sense, and it was a subject I didn't usually try to talk to him about. Once or twice, we'd just argued and shouted over each other. But on this occasion, he brought up the idea that it was impossible for us to know what the climate was like thousands of years ago. And this happened to touch on a subject I was a bit obsessed with, something about which even though I wasn't an expert, I knew far more than most normal people.

So I thought I'd try to explain to my dad about isotopic ratios of oxygen trapped in air bubbles in ice cores. He interrupted me and shouted so loudly that I couldn't hear myself talk. He ranted that no magical pixiedust bullshit was going to prove what the temperature used to be like thousands of years ago, that it was impossible. Well, I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like that. And this time, I was determined that we wouldn't just shout over each other. So I resisted, refusing to interrupt him the way he'd interrupted me. I waited for him to stop, then said that I wanted to explain something to him. I tried to bring up isotopes again, but before I could get anywhere, he started shouting over me again, going into a nearly identical rant. He didn't say anything new exactly, but there was a little variation on the same theme that it was all bullshit.

Somehow, uncharacteristically, I remained calm and tried again, slightly changing my own approach and gently trying to get him to acknowledge that I wanted to talk. That sort of thing usually worked with him. He could be rude sometimes in shouting over people or not listening, but he tended to let people speak if they specifically asked him to let them speak. Only it didn't work, and right as I was getting to the same part of just trying to mention isotopes of oxygen, he was at it a third time, shouting about how it was impossible for mere humans to know anything about this. I tried again a few more times with the same result. It might seem crazy in hindsight, but at the time, after four or five instances of him shouting over me when I tried to talk, I thought that he'd get tired of it and that he might actually listen. Nope. He won that battle.

For one thing, he was loud. I mean, I inherited that from him, but he was getting painfully loud. But mostly, the actual words that he was shouting were pretty limited, all along this theme of outright denial. He was completely unwilling to hear me out. So I just gave up. I stopped trying to talk.

Obviously that wasn't the last time I had a conversation with my dad. But it was the last time I tried to respectfully present facts and reason to him like that. Afterward, when we had an argument and he was being a willfully ignorant dumbass, I'd call him a willfully ignorant dumbass.