A colleague wrote to our class list Poel85 that he's never been very much into communicating via blogs. I can think of a good reason: blog readers, with the exception of people who comment on this blog, are a bunch of lunatics! There also exist complete idiots, but the majority of idiots who make comments are lunatics as well.
Every incident in the world that involves a Moslem or an Arab brings about a series of accusations that "all Arabs are such-and-such and unless you agree with me you are also," and the equally reasoned counter-accusation that "if you think that Moslems are then you must be a..." I'll leave aside any international incident that involves Israel, as well as the majority of incidents that don't even involve Israel, but still serve as an excuse to start an anti-Semitic diatribe. Or think of all the amazing theories that get repeated in economics blogs: Are there really so many people who think Paul Krugman is a fascist-communist? Some bloggers such as Gustavo Chacra go to the trouble of gently answering their followers, probably after erasing the most offensive posts: others poke fun at the most ridiculous comments like Alexandre Schwartsman. Still the lunatics keep coming back.
One thing is certain: the lunatics seems to take extremist positions, in the common ground beyond the extreme left and the extreme right. There seem to be fewer of them talking about the natural sciences - very few scientists can be found among climate change deniers, or among the people who believe that gravitation is untrue because Einstein was a Jew.
But the questions are: How many lunatics are there in the world? How do they find the time to write? Where were they before the internet? Are there more of them now, or are they more visible? Are there many such lunatics still hiding behind a façade of politeness? Can we classify the diplomatic left-wing supporters of the the Axis among them?
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
4 comentários:
Not all of them are lunatics, there are trolls also. Would you call Freeman Dyson a lunatic? He's done some harm by saying that CO2 wasn't that dangerous and it could mitigated with "genetically engineered trees" (nevermind ocean acidification and other greenhouse gases such as methane). It's not the first time an otherwise brilliant scientist steps outside his area of expertise to reveal unfounded beliefs. I know you said "very few" instead that "no scientist" challenge man-made global warming, but Dyson is pretty high-profile and lots of people listen to him.
The danger from CO2 is hard to measure: we should avoid emitting greenhouse gases out of precaution. The idea of mitigating their effect using trees or whatever could be wrong, but is not lunatic. So no, Dyson is no lunatic, even when he has bad ideas.
Acho que esse post deveria tambem fazer referencia à Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches" ou, na sua forma sintética, a conhecida "reductio ad hitlerum".
abs
sgold
Agora tem, graças a você! Se bem que no Brasil oficial do Itamaraty chamar alguém de fascista é um xingo menos grave do que chamar de democrata liberal.
Postar um comentário