BPSDB
Fuddle Duddle
Chamberlain, Trudeau or … ?
Flotsam
A couple of weeks ago Michael Tobis shocked the delicate, refined sensibilities of the climate change Deniers by stating unambiguously what is at stake and what he felt were the unhelpful contributions of Steve Mosher.
Michael was blowing off some steam and may have used some language that he generally doesn’t. The incident would warrant only passing remark except for some of the fall out and follow up.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Getting past the irrelevant, the incident raises some important questions about how we engage in the debate, what our goals are, and what the implications are for our struggle, as individuals and as a collective.
.
Fuddle Duddle
Text of what Tobis actually said
“Let me explain why. It is not because I am a pusillanimous chickenshit, Mosher. It is because the fucking survival of the fucking planet is at fucking stake. And if we narrowly fucking miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fucking personal individual fucking self-satisfied mischief and disrespect for authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fucking nerve saying you are on my “side”.
Unless and until you find it within yourself to understand that you have major fucked up, big time, by throwing big juicy meat to the deniers to chew on and spin paranoid fantasies about for years, even decades,”
What I heard as significant:
“Let me explain why. It is not because I am a pusillanimous chickenshit, Mosher. It is because the fucking survival of the fucking planet is at fucking stake.
What stood out for me was Tobis cutting to the core issue and expressing a decidedly less optimistic worldview than he generally does. Calling Mosher out that way for vainly playing self-indulgent games, suffering as he does from the misapprehension that he is some sort of rebel, was rather harsh, but then I wasn’t sure what Tobis’ real purpose was.
Those, and the use of “pusillanimous“ which I have to admit I think is a lovely word and I always take note when someone uses it correctly.
All the Deniers apparently heard:
“Let me explain why. It is not because I am a pusillanimous chickenshit, Mosher. It is because the fucking survival of the fucking planet is at fucking stake. And if we narrowly fucking miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fucking personal individual fucking self-satisfied mischief and disrespect fornerve saying you are on my “side”. authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fucking
Unless and until you find it within yourself to understand that you have major fucked up,
The Denier response (eg Wormtongue, Lucretia, Wattsupmybutt) was to confirm the truth of Tobis’ earlier observation that they are incapable of even hearing, much less understanding the actual message. It’s almost as if they suffer from some form of Aspergers syndrome and are unable to distinguish what is relevant from what isn’t.
Missing from their posts is any discussion, or even mention of the fact of our imminent self-destruction, or Mosher’s role in undermining the rational discussion of it, or anything ar all that might interest an adult.
Whether one is offended by, or indifferent to coarse language, the fact remains that there was a great deal more to the post than eleven repetitions of the word “fuck”, and as usual the Deniers are completely oblivious to it. Instead it’s all:
“giggle giggle Michael used the F word in class! giggle giggle he really did giggle giggle I heard it giggle giggle. He is so bad giggle giggle“
In the comment threads you can also see where some Deniers morphed into their fictious maiden aunts and were “shocked, shocked” to hear such language. If you are low on your Recommended Daily Allowance of sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical moralizing then you should have a look, but other than that there is absolutely nothing there.
I would think that if one feels the use of the expletive was unwarranted or counterproductive then one would make the case and move on to discussing the substance of the post. Instead the pre-teen Hannah Montana wannabe gaggle of Deniers cite Tobis’ language as “proof” that he has nothing to offer.
As ever the Deniers have no grasp of reality or logic. Stating the obvious, the evidence of whether Tobis has anything to offer would be found by actually reading what he had to say, something the Deniers never seem to do. As it happens Tobis’ post stands in sharp contrast to the Denier commentary in that it is not a vacuous pile of adolescent drivel preoccupied with the irrelevant.
Chamberlain, Trudeau or … ?
In a follow up piece Tobis posts a text chat he had with Willard discussing the post and whether he should have “done it.” Willard’s council is that he should not, but it is a conversation that doesn’t rigourously explore why not, although it touches on some important points which I want to be more explicit about.
One line of reasoning would be that the language distracts from the message and hence undermines Tobis’ purpose. Yes and no. For the most part we know full well the Deniers don’t listen and seem incapable of processing simple statements. Had Tobis left out the harsh language what the Deniers would have heard was:
“Let me explain why. It is not because I am a pusillanimous chickenshit, Mosher. It is because the fucking survival of the fucking planet is at fucking stake. And if we narrowly fucking miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fucking personal individual fucking self-satisfied mischief and disrespect fornerve saying you are on my “side”. authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fucking
Unless and until you find it within yourself to understand that you have major fucked up,
As such I don’t think that it makes much difference one way or the other.
Willard also argues that the rant was divisive, and I confess I start to get nervous when I hear that argument, at least when framed that way. Too often the demand that one “not be divisive” rapidly devolves into advocating being conciliatory and placatory, whether explicitly or implicitly.
This is a losing strategy for all the reasons Roberts discussed with respect to “post-truth politics.” The Deniers are not interested in rational discussion or fact, and conceding points simply to avoid being divisive will achieve nothing.
Read my lips
Let’s be blunt, Tobis is absolutely right, the fucking survival of the fucking planet is at fucking stake. The obscenity is not Tobis’ choice of adjectives, but rather that we have brought the planet to this point. All the more obscene are the lies and frauds the Deniers use to further their ideological agenda.
Indeed I can think of nothing more obscene than the deaths that are already occurring as a direct consequence of the gross incompetence of the handful of Denier “scientists” coupled with the ignorance of the gullible mob desperate to believe them.
To cite Tobis as obscene while being one of the latter is simply sickening. If the choice is between being an appeaser or rude then I will have to advocate for the Trudeau approach; tell them to go fuddle duddle themselves.
Martin Luther King Jr et al
However, if we reframe the goal as “keep the avenues of dialogue open” it becomes an entirely different story. The goal here is not to avoid conflict (which it should never be), but rather to establish dialogue, or at least keep the possibility of dialogue always on the table.
Dialogue is about clearly expressing one’s own points and perspectives, and fully hearing out those of the other. It is about a sincere willingness to keep exploring opportunities for resolution that do not require conceding core issues or objectives.
It should be done frankly, but always respectfully and with no insult to the person; openly, honestly, and in good faith. If that results in conflict or division, so be it, it was clearly unavoidable. The important thing is to hold fast to the truth, which is defined both by the values one is advocating for and how one treats the other person.
After all, are we not fighting for “life” rather than simply “survival”? I think all of us carry a vision that presumes health, dignity and well being for all living things, not simply the persistence of particular genetic lineages. How can we advocate for that truth if we are not trying to live it as well?
Willard also discusses what is perhaps the most important point, albeit arguably just another aspect of living ones truths, viz who does Tobis want to be?
This is the real question, the real work, because it is inseparable from what we are trying to create. I realize that the axiom “you become what you do” sounds trite, but that does not make it any less true.
If you need evidence then I direct you to the Denialosphere and the Deniers who are out in the playground giggling about dirty words. It is a monument to their behaviour, not their ideals, and a stark warning to us.
The consequence of his post is that Tobis is struggling to understand who he is and how he can best contribute. That invariably leads to questions about what ones values are and how does one live them rather than simply fight for them; an oxymoron since the former is the latter, you do both or neither.
It has been easy enough to bumble along in the cocoon of modern liberal democracies giving lip service to noble ideals. That is how most of us have lived most of our lives. That is the past, it’s gone, a relict of Earth. We live on Eaarth now, and that won’t work anymore.
The coming years are going to be ones of struggle, struggle that forces us to confront what we believe in, what we are fighting for, what matters, who we are, who we want to be. We may think that these have always been important to us, but those are entirely different questions when engaged in serious political struggle rather than coffee shop banter.
The things we will need to give up will be far harder than the dross of private automobiles and other luxury conveniences. We will be required to set aside the the things we truly hold dear and treasure: vanity, ego, self-delusion, pride.
“Unless you are prepared to give up something valuable you will never be able to truly change at all, because you’ll be forever in the control of things you can’t give up.” — Andy Law
Eaarth needs us, and to respond to that need we each have to get clarity about who we are and how we live our truths. It is never a question of what you are willing to sacrifice; that is incidental. The real question invariably is what do you have the courage to become?
Zwei Wölfe kämpfen im Herzen eines jeden Mannes.
Der eine wird Liebe, der andere Hass genannt.
Und welcher gewinnt?
Der, den du am meisten nährst!
Flotsam
In writing this piece a few interesting things popped up that are pretty much irrelevant to the post itself, but which I want to share nonetheless.
.
Sometimes no other word quite does the job …
.
.
A little cultural and historical context by Les Galosches (which probably won’t mean much if you’re not Canadian).
.
.
Boucrate just jamming on his guitar; pretty awesome if your tastes run this way (mine do).
.
.
And finally, for Dr Ken Storey,
.
in memory of several quite enjoyable conversations we had many years ago about the etymology, versatility and proper usage of the word “fuck.” Ever the nerdy scientist, Ken was interested in the topic not because it was crude, “rebellious” or titillating, but because it was interesting. God love him.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
You are the most enjoyable writer I’ve come across in a long time. I also admire and appreciate the deconstruction/analysis, which is useful. I’m so grateful to my friends who pointed me this way (Roddy, Naumer, Pauli, Gail Z et al.)
Thanks!
—-
> …establish dialogue, or at least keep the possibility of dialogue always on the table.
But dialogue with certain players is an impossibility. Watts, Morano, McIntyre, etc. are devious and dishonest people who will *never* be swayed by reason, evidence or good faith. Then there’s the truly unhinged, such as Poptart. Unreachable. There is no dialogue with these people, only a war of attrition against their lies and idiocy. [1]
As for sturdy Anglo Saxon, it has its place. It’s a linguistic tool and can be used to great effect. Anyone who really grasps what is happening to our only planet has every right to be extremely angry and that’s part of what expletives are there for. The fact that it causes conservatives / regressives to clutch their pearls and nearly faint is just a bonus. 😉 [2]
—-
Oh agreed!
The fucking sociopaths are running the asylum.
And this post has to be one of the quintessential denialist put-downs of all time.
So we should talk about that more:
Are we screwed?
Doomed?
Fucked? Toasted? How about pickled?
My favorite is the exclamation: “Game over man!”
Maybe all we can do is mumble and moan.
—-
The consequence of his post is that Tobis is struggling to understand who he is and how he can best contribute. That invariably leads to questions about what ones values are and how does one live them rather than simply fight for them; an oxymoron since the former is the latter, you do both or neither.
I have a lot of respect for MT – he comes across as a thoughtful person who does give these kind of questions a lot of consideration. If only some of the “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” posessed even a fraction of this kind of self-awareness.
—-
“Survival of the planet is at stake” is factually false, though it may be metaphorically true. Perhaps survival of the species homo sapiens is at stake.
—-
I was impressed that MT corrected a commenter who went to far in criticizing, I think it was Tom Fuller. He indicated he was not evil, only misguided. We need to remember not to shoot at people who might otherwise think a little harder and look a bit further. If they know they are honest, labeling them only hardens them or creates intransigeance. It’s such a field of eggshells, as they can be as rude and inaccurate as they like.
How come I so often think of Sauron and Mordor. Appearance a bit roughshod, honesty to the fore … please.
Judy Curry has brought attention to both of us recently. I’m grateful she pointed me here for this posting.
As a friend and collaborator of MTs and a friend and colleague of Judy’s, it’s all very interesting. Dialogue and all that.
—-
“Too often the demand that one “not be divisive” rapidly devolves into advocating being conciliatory and placatory, whether explicitly or implicitly.”
Do any others find this argument uncomfortably like the “don’t antagonise him, dear” advice formerly given to partners of violent men? If you just get the housework, conversation, meals, attitude right, you just might keep some teeth a bit longer.
And then there’s the more modern attitude. “Why didn’t she leave sooner?” So if some teeth get knocked out, it’s her own fault for being there.
Otherwise known as – you can’t win.
—-
I have a bit of a reaction to this. Bully power is bully power, and the various experiences of it e.g. occupation, colonialism, partner violence, unabated climate change and its impacts on the poorest nations – are inter-related but also different, not only in terms of strategic response but obviously also in terms of personal experience.
For me, it is not sensitive or relevant to lump it all as ‘abuse’. I would actually argue that doing so performs exactly what you are (both) arguing against – silencing, in the name of unity. But that’s a long argument, if it’s to be meaningful.
I guess I can at least say that comparing the (vastly white middle class male) individualist anarchists like the Black bloc, and their ‘silencing’ of other (vastly white middle class male) radicals or left radicals in the anti-oppression movement to partner abuse, is not a comparison that I think represents the specific features of violence against women and women’s second class citizenship; or the absence of women’s issues, presence and leadership in the movement.
I say this to better expose the dynamics at play when we make statements like that, and how internalized oppression and the dynamics of the broader society are reflected in political movements. It doesn’t seem to get dealt with.
Personally, I do listen closely to men and learn about and respond as much as I can to their experiences of abuse. I recognize both what is shared and what is not the same — otherwise I would be denying the importance of individual experience and missing important differences in the manifestations, causes and solutions to abuses of power.
I try to understand the reasons for the call for unity as well as significant differences that prevent unity. We all know there are persistent weakness in social change movements for all kinds of reasons, including the scale and size of mass society: goups are fragmented, locally, nationally and internationally; and shared goals are difficult. When we can share goals, that is my focus. But I don’t mistake this for shared experience, or assume common beliefs about how we are situated or what we do.
In terms of climate change, we (including me) tend to have turned our main attention to the U.S., both emotionally and practically, especially post-Copenhagen — for good reasons, in relation the footdragging on policy and the implications of this. But I think this is a mistake and I see no explicit discussion of it.
I encourage continued discussion of questions and dynamics…
—-
heh. Loved the post. I’m old enough (barely) to remember the fuddle-duddle controversy–it would have been more entertaining if the internet were available.
And Dr. Storey is quite the interesting character. I’ve met him a couple of times, the second time he was a guest speaker at our university and we went out for drinks and dinner afterward. Not only is he an entertaining speaker, he’s even more entertaining in off-the-cuff comments over dinner. At the time I was looking at getting another graduate degree and I was interested in his cryo- work so we discussed various projects and he encouraged me to apply. Any papers of his I couldn’t access online he graciously emailed links or the actual papers
I ended up working with another well known scientist in the ecology field instead, but I still toy with the idea of going back in my ‘old’ age, this time with Dr. Storey. I still have every cryo paper he’s published up till around 10 years ago.
btw, he offended our head of the department, who called him a prima donna and said he’d never invite him again–but our department chair (now demoted) was a blowhard who hadn’t published anything since his own graduate research 30 years earlier and would regularly denigrate other professors in the department who were doing research. One of his many mistakes was criticizing popular professors in front of students–they turned against him fast.
He then blamed me for turning students against him when at the time I didn’t have a clue that he was slandering me behind my back to his students. It was after that that Dr. Storey arrived and proceeded to pop the chair’s pompous inflated ego. This display gave me a wicked evil pleasure (I’m flawed that way), and I made sure to incorporate Dr. Storey’s work into all relevant (and sometimes non-relevant) courses because I knew that would irk the chair (plus I found his work fascinating). I hope to meet Dr. Storey again…I’ll have to tell him in person how much I enjoyed his dinner conversation and why.
Hello. Thank you for your analysis, which I noticed only today. I don’t have much time to comment, so perhaps I’ll take the opportunity to expand a bit, taking as a hook the fact that the title of this blog post is in German.
I just watched Alain de Botton’s episode entitled **Schopenhauer on Love**, starting there:
There are two connections to be made between Botton’s essay and the topic of my conversation with MT. The first one is, of course, love. Quoth me:
> If you’re to keep fighting, you need to find love here.
I believe that this matters quite a lot. It relates to our own self-esteem, which in turn impacts on the kind of relationships that are built in blogland. I’m sure there are tons of things one could add here, but life is short and I am in a hurry.
The second connection is to be found in this sentence:
> After all, are we not fighting for “life” rather than simply “survival”? I think all of us carry a vision that presumes health, dignity and well being for all living things, not simply the persistence of particular genetic lineages. How can we advocate for that truth if we are not trying to live it as well?
This hinges toward Schopenhauer’s idea of will to live. Botton has a brilliant idea to illustrate how this will to live is not conscious, but mainly uncounscious. He simply asks chaps in a club if they’ve showed up to perpetuate the race. You can guess the answer, or better watch around the 10th minute of the episode.
Here’s why I am telling this. Suppose what we want to do here is to improve the survival rate or our ideas, one of which incidentally being the survival of our specie. Do we tell that this is what we are here for? Unless we’re creatures of Woody Allen’s imagination, I suppose not.
By the same token, there does seem to be a problem with the very idea of castigating someone online. It really nullifies everything one might claim about that person’s behavior. And so there is no point in that kind of theatrics, unless what we want is more climate comedy.
So my point is not about tone-trolling, but about pragmatics. One simply can’t castigate someone while being frank, respectful, and non-insulting. Quite frankly, I could not care less if people rejoice in swearing, insulting, or food fighting. What matters is what one wants to do here.
Any style of player is good, as long as it serves a purpose on the ice. There are at least four kinds of hockey lines: scoring lines, two-way lines, checking lines, and power lines. For this model to have any meaning, we need to define what is to score, to check. That’s why I asked MT:
> How to you score goals?
Since I need to go now, I’ll leave us ponder on this. I say us because I really don’t know the answer to that question.
So let me get this straight. You’re saying that we’re fighting for the human species to survive with dignity, therefore we should constantly turn the other cheek whenever self-proclaimed ‘skeptics’ go around spreading lies, innuendo, death threats, and even threats to rape kids?
— frank
No, I’m saying that are things better done than said.
I like the way WitsEnd says it in her report from Heartland Land – they are just crazy.
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/07/beware-banality-of-evil-heartless-at.html
And to demonstrate that – see her pictured in the cupcake outfit.
CupCake meaning it is fully baked, or maybe half baked.
I like the way WitsEnd says it in her report from Heartland Land – they are just crazy.
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/07/beware-banality-of-evil-heartless-at.html
And to demonstrate that – see her pictured in the cupcake outfit.
CupCake meaning it’s fully baked, or maybe half-baked.