Disagree with grace

It is deflection, i.e. “I can’t answer Dirk therefore I’ll shut down the conversation by saying his response isn’t valid.” It sounds like Westy is okay with talking the talk but when it comes time to walking the walk, she rationalizes why she doesn’t need to do what she’s preaching everyone else should do. These days, virtue signaling is much more important than action and more important than having an honest discussion, such as what actions Westy is actually doing to address this so-called climate change. BTW, I seeded a few indoor planters and planted a few trees the other day. More carbon credits to add to my balance? I’m not doing it because of so-called global warming; I’m doing it because I’m fond of Nature and beautiful flora. Kudos from Westy for my actions even though there's no such thing as man-made global warming...

Isn’t it funny, Westy, how the most science challenged among us have such a mysterious understanding of global warming, knowing it better than the world-wide consensus among the top scientists in the field, with the exception of those few paid off by the petroleum industry to issue fake reports to fool the gullible. Or, on second thought, - perhaps I shouldn’t call it “funny’, instead of sad, or perhaps embarrassing.

Westy: From an LTE I published more than 8 years ago:

Climate confusion

Snow storms and cold spells on the East coast have deniers like Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans all fired up. Despite the indisputable trend to a steadily warmer globe overall, certain places will still be cold at times, and, of course, there will be snow. Exactly because of a warmer globe, there will be more snow in those places that are still cold. It is very simple. The warmer the weather, the more water will evaporate from oceans and lakes. When the atmosphere can’t hold more evaporated water, rain will fall in warmer areas. And, yes, snow where it is still cold enough for rain to turn into snow. And because of climate change, storms will be more violent as well.

For every unusually cold area, we can point to other areas unusually hot. The previously rather cold Nordic countries are experiencing unusually warm weather, and a lack of snow on which to ski. Australia is blazing hot these days.

Observations of climate changes must be based on trends, not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.

The depth of the ignorance can best be exposed by Republican talking head Erick Erickson’s Facebook entry: “The difference between people who believe in the 2nd coming of Jesus and those who believe in global warming is that Jesus will return.” Yeah, blind faith trumps solid science anytime, among some Republicans. Wonder what would happen if President Obama all of a sudden should come out and deny climate change? Actually, I think I know.

Hello, Mike

Any response regarding the following?

Jorg mentions posts that he finds inappropriate and degrading. It's a fair point. However, I would say more inappropriate and degrading ad hominen rhetoric comes from contributors with a decidedly left leaning tilt... and some of those voices on the left have called for censoring opinions that differ from their own viewpoints.

Hi, Jorg

It's not quite that easy. On your blog, you routinely invite comments for "the rest of the world to see!" but then you reject or edit responses you do not like. Your blog postings are largely the same material you submit to the DJ. However, you cannot censor rebuttals to your opinion pieces when they appear in a forum designed to promote an open dialog.

My reference to censorship was not about your blog. Sorry for the confusion. It was referencing calls from left leaning DJ readers to silence conservative viewpoints published in the DJ. Additionally, in my view, you will find more inappropriate and degrading ad hominem rhetoric in the DJ coming from the left side of he spectrum.

Talk to you tomorrow...

Ray: So, what's the worst you have seen on this site from the so-called "left"?

It sounds like Jorg is trying to change the definition of censorship; much in the same way Biden is trying to change the definition of a recession. To great failure, I might add. Perhaps if Biden spent as much time acknowledging his disastrous policies, the recession wouldn’t have occurred. Perhaps if Jorg spent as much time in not censoring people, there might be respectful, and informational, dialog.

Hi, Jorg

I've got some errands this morning but will get back to you... soon (I hope).

Good morning, Jorg

Again, I appreciate your call for civility... and extending our conversation in such a civil manner.

I will stand by my statement, "... more inappropriate and degrading ad hominen rhetoric comes from contributors with a decidedly left leaning tilt... and some of those voices on the left have called for censoring opinions that differ from their own viewpoints."

Oh, yes... there have been remarks made by right leaning DJ readers that were inappropriate and degrading, but more ad hominem rhetoric comes from the left side of the aisle. Harangues from the left labeling conservatives as unpatriotic, gullible, unintelligent and uneducated appear frequently in these pages. This type of rhetoric is not limited to the DJ. It should be OK for someone with a conservative political bent to disagree with the majority of DJ readers without being labeled unpatriotic, gullible, unintelligent and uneducated.

Censorship... left leaning readers have called for the DJ to stop publishing conservative opinion pieces. I have read plenty of comments from conservative readers that disagree with liberal opinions, but I cannot recall any of those conservative voices calling for censoring liberal opinions. If you don't like what someone says... say so... or just skip over the remarks you don't like.

Dorothy Dimitre, Requiescat in pace, was often very critical of conservatives. I disagreed with her on several points... but I would never have called for her being banished from the DJ's op-ed page. I will go out on a limb... I don't think Dorothy would have approved of censoring any opinions... liberal or conservative.

Ray: I agree, in an open platform like this, censorship is unwelcome. However, I wonder how the editor would react to someone trying to promote Nazism? And how would you react, if I called someone like that “idiot”?

However, it is entirely different with a personal opinion blog like mine! It is designed with the main intention of promoting my viewpoints and opinion on things that concern me and interest me, not someone else’s views. Why should I publish someone else’s pet viewpoints? I invite comments, additional support points, and corrections if something I write is wrong, but I have no obligation to promote anything I disagree with, or something that waters down the points I’m trying to make. From the feedback I get, and the growing number of followers, I’m being heard. My opinion of Trump is shared by a steadily increasing majority in this country, and where I come from, and among my friends and family members around the world, 100% agreement! I even have Republican friends who wouldn’t in their wildest dreams vote for someone like Trump!

Jorg, gammel venn…

If your blog is intended to promote only your viewpoints and opinion on things, then those views might be better presented as a series of lectures. However, if you invite commentary but reject submissions of factual and verifiable material supported by evidence because such submissions argue against your views… that’s censorship… pure and simple.

Your opinion of President Trump has been stated many, many times in the DJ. Lest you forget… I have publicly rejected the Donald’s stolen election scenario, obsessive tweeting, and distortion of truth while openly stating I hope the RNC nominates someone other than Trump in 2024. However, when you asked for a list of the previous administration’s accomplishments, and I sent you one… your response? Crickets. I’m not a fan of the current administration, but when a policy or program works out, I’m glad… and I feel such successes deserve recognition.

To your point… if someone tried to promote Nazism in the DJ, he or she could have their say… but I’m guessing they would draw the enmity of both liberal and conservative readers. Hate speech… no matter how repugnant… is protected. While you and I have the right to express our opinions on virtually any topic, haters also have the right to express themselves. Here’s an interesting fact for you… last year, which country’s citizens were ranked for valuing free speech the most? Are you sitting down? Norway!

It's almost 5 pm. Time for some akvavit or other adult beverage. Skål you later...

Thanks, Dirk! There’s no secret that I have nothing but contempt for someone like Trump! I rejected him as unworthy after the p-grabbing story broke, making me ashamed on behalf of my fellow men. If anything, I have gotten a steadily worse opinion after all that has come out about him. But it is beyond me, how well educated, intelligent people like yourself, can support someone like Trump, faking religion and pretending to be a Republican. And now, after all that has been exposed about him, and probably even more coming, millions still find him worthy of the highest, most important office in the world! That is hard to swallow for someone like me, who loves this country just as much as you do.

Agree Jorg. I try to separate the crazy from the person, but one must speak up strongly when that person is supporting a guy who kidnapped the children of desperate refugees, who admitted to being a sexual predator, and who deliberately worked to dismantle our democracy--not just on Jan 6 but throughout his tenure, appointing people who had no experience and loudly opposed the very organizations they were appointed to lead.

Westy...

It's clear your opposition to someone who supports the former president will not change... and it's equally clear that other person's opposition to your support of the current president will not change.

Is there any common ground?

Sounds like a few readers called it… more inappropriate and degrading ad hominen rhetoric comes from contributors with a decidedly left leaning tilt... from a guy who has been degrading and demeaning millions of Trump supporters for years, calling them every name under the sun… nothing to offer other than another segue into an orange man bad rant… Thanks Jorg, and a shout out to Westy, for making our predictions (can I even call them predictions, maybe statements of fact?) come true. So much for a more respectable and agreeable level (like our dear readers didn’t know this “plea” was nothing more than the usual fake news and lies from Jorg)…

Ray: Common ground? You are asking the impossible when you ask for “common ground” with those who for mysterious reasons still defend, even worship, what the vast and steadily increasing majority of us criticize about Trump’s unbelievable mismanagement, a lying man-child who in the office way above his head surrounded himself with criminals and incompetents, being himself such a despicable character that we are ashamed on the part of the country, including us “foreigners”. What “common ground” can there be, especially now after all that has been exposed about him, - and why?

Good afternoon, Jorg

Re: your argument against the previous administration… persons on the other side of your argument can stack up just as many reasons for ridiculing the current administration. Where does that get us? Let’s get back to your “Disagree with grace” theme.

The very last part of your previous post cries out for an answer. You asked, with respect to common ground… “why?” Well, if we don’t strive to find some common ground, it’s not unforeseeable that we, as a people… a common people, will be driven further apart. Again… is there any common ground?