Sunday, 22 May 2011

等待 我

I'm having some Blogger problems - either someone is trying to phish my Blogger account or someone is trying to have me banned. Not a maintenance issue.

To whomever it was who clicked the "report abuse" button - let me quote to you from Google's own Blogger Content Policy:
"We want you to use Blogger to express your opinions, even very controversial ones. But, don't cross the line by publishing hate speech. By this, we mean content that promotes hate or violence towards groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity. For example, don't write a blog saying that members of Race X are criminals or advocating violence against followers of Religion Y."
I have never done that: read through my entire posting history, you will not find a single instance of me advocating violence or of classifying people as criminals by virtue of their race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity. Not Guilty.

Nonetheless, as I said in my most recent letter, I believe this "hate speech" notion is an incursion on freedom of expression - where it is done by the State. Yet Google is not the State and, it's Blogger templates are private property: it is therefore free to set any terms for use of these templates it likes.


  1. Nothing new, it happened with conservative US bloggers 1-2 years ago which is another reason most of the avoid google as much as they can. Google has improved though, before they'd just rip you blog down.

  2. I was denied access to my blog, but they restored it immediately after I went through their procedural hoops.

  3. By the way Okami - you could challenge Turton on the science; (a) his statements are way too hyperbolic for the IPCC ("destroy the planet" etc), and (b) much of the scientific uncertainty lies with the feedback mechanisms between the so-called greenhouse gases and water vapour, as well as the moderating effects of cloud cover.

  4. I'm fairly certain that your blog was reported by someone on the left. They are often the first one's to inject racism etc. into every argument. They are also quick to proclaim freedom of speech unless of course your speech counters to their view points. I guess you can take solace in the fact that someone on the left deemed your blog worthy of reporting.

  5. Heh didn't notice all the punctuation errors. Please edit.

  6. "...your blog was reported by someone on the left."


  7. Here's the thing, Turton thinks he's normal and rational just like the dudes who put out the 10-10 video, the videos of Acorn workers helping to set up brothels housing underage Central American girls or the planned parenthood videos where they helped underage girls obtain abortions without parental consent while not reporting cases of statutory rape. That's why Turton sees the 10-10 video as small potatoes. He actually believes that shit. Read his post, he believes an apocalypse is coming and mankind is doomed.

    The idea was never to debate Turton, because he doesn't debate at all. Turton's a bully, but having him throw out his ideas which he thinks are perfectly normal helps others see how insane he is. Ever notice how Turton never mentions his beliefs in prior posts on such subjects and how he walked right into expressing them with a bit of coaching from me. Well, coincidence exists only in the mind of a fool.

    I've dealt with conspiracy theorists, believers in a coming apocalypse and other people with extreme forms of confirmation bias. You're never going to win a debate with them, but you can make them look silly. You're also never going to win the hearts of the terrified with appeals to do nothing even if it's in their best interests to not do anything. It's like the line from that British comedy, "Yes, Minister",
    -Something needs to be done
    -This is something
    -So it needs to be done

    His ideas if implemented would lead billions to death and starvation. My lead point was that on a purely supply and demand basis, any worldwide plan to combat carbon emissions would fail because the laws of economics like the laws of physics and math are unbreakable.

  8. "The idea was never to debate Turton, because he doesn't debate at all. Turton's a bully, but having him throw out his ideas which he thinks are perfectly normal helps others see how insane he is."

    Yes, but you presuppose that those "others" are not insane (or desperately ignorant and naive) themselves. Now in a select few cases, that presupposition may be warranted but in reference to either those who share his ethical framework entirely, or those who simply don't know any better, it's a losing tactic. Take that "Herman" rube for example: what the f*ck is someone like him going to be able to do with that information about Turton's proposals viz energy, except nervously applaud them?

    I think you underate the illuminative power of argument from ethical principle - see for example the comment to this post. I'd have wiped the floor with Turton several times over on that thread, which is precisely why I am banned. Have you seen my previous with him?

  9. either those who share his ethical framework entirely...

    I think you underate the illuminative power of argument from ethical principle ...

    But then it really just comes down to which ethical framework is more popular as revealed by that windfarm debate where Turton states:

    We mocked Fagan because, as I and others repeatedly pointed out, his "numbers" were rank nonsense. None of the points he made was relevant.

    Fagan was banned here for reasons that ought to be clear right from this conversation, starting with a constant substitution of ideology for reality.


    P.S. That last statement is also a direct admission of the bullshitness of

    "There are two banned individuals, FOARP and Fagan, both for personal insults."

  10. I hadn't seen that Blob. Thanks to you and Steve for sticking up for me.

  11. At the end of the day, you're most likely going to lose to environmentalists just because they are more organized and never called out on their lies and distortions.

    We've seen it with light bulbs where the perfectly safe method has been replaced with either one that causes a hazmat situation* or will cost you a lot lot more. We've also seen it with dishwasher detergent where states have limited the amount of phosphate leading to more detergent and water use based on flimsy methodology.

    No one really thinks of orders of consequence. Look at Turton's proposals and my statement that following the AGW crowds recommendations will lead to a life of serfdom and subsistence level agriculture. I mean are you really going to consign half the world population to death because you want to end the Haber process due to its use of natural gas? You can't even use that argument because the people you are trying to persuade don't even know what the Haber process is or what it has to do with petrochemical industry. They just know that oil is bad for plants. You have to hand it to the left in that they have done a great job dumbing down education.

    *Hazmat situations in the US are serious business. Lets say I don't like your business and you have a lot of those twisty bulbs. I can go into your business, break them, then call the local EPA and have you pay for the cost of clean up. You're business will also have to shutdown during that time. The psychological impact on you, your employees and your customers will most likely decimate you. Sure you could sue me for the money, but you're screwed if I'm poor and can file bankruptcy. I could also make it look like an accident. I only need one bulb broken and you'll only need $10,000+US to clean it up.

    You may wonder why I think all is lost on this front and the simple answer is education. It's one of biggest underlying battles in the US. School choice is huge. This is why you are seeing such a concerted effort to get parochial and private schools to adhere to a national education plan. You can see rules and lawsuits that just make you scratch your head, like the one in Plano, Texas where a principal grabbed and destroyed tickets to a free Xmas play that the student was giving away off of school property.

  12. "...they are more organized and never called out on their lies and distortions."

    No, they are called out, but not enough people attend when they are shown to be liars or fools. I've been calling Turton on his bullshit for more than a year now - and the Taipei Times on their bullshit for more than three years now - and I've got what, three or four regular commenters? It's pitiable.

    Having said that, my page view stats are in the thousands per month now, I have managed to persuade a few people (possibly many more I don't know about) and I seem to have disuaded a few nutcases into despair (e.g. Bruno Walther) and made others think twice about their arguments. There's more I can do, but I'm selfish - I have a life outside of this.

    "...the people you are trying to persuade don't even know what the Haber process is or what it has to do with petrochemical industry. They just know that oil is bad for plants."

    Yes I know - but note that this statement does not sit entirely plumb with the one above about not calling the environmentalists on their bullshit. Even when factual refutations are offered it doesn't f*cking matter because in both education, and in other institutions in the culture more generally, epistemology is being replaced by mimesis. So look at that Herman rube - he admits to you, in all smiley-face innocence, that he doesn't know what you're talking about and then proceeds to confirm his hand-clapping, imbelic obedience to Turton's five point plan. Facts will not touch someone like him.

    That's a very salient aspect of what has to be challenged - the dilution of epistemology into mimesis. I think like a pessimist, but I try to feel like an optimist, which is difficult.


Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.