Reminded me of the concern about the island of Guam 'tipping over'[1].
What are we (the U.S.) doing that results largely in the pool of political candidates comprised of people who are so out of touch with reality and lack basic common sense? How do we instead incentivise our best minds to run for office?
And his defense of his mind numbing stupidity was that he was at a Bureau of Land Management meeting and so it was a completely coherent thing to say. Clear cut forests, build a really tall jenga tower, and push the moon from there... was that the idea?
The idea was that because in his mind, climate change is only caused by changes in Earth's orbit, the BLM can't do anything to help. Asking if they could change orbits was sarcastic.
"Only Johnson knows for sure what he was thinking as he questioned Admiral Willard, and he later claimed he was “speaking metaphorically” and “kidding” (although critics noted no trace of humor was apparent in his words, tone, or body language, nor did he react or offer correction when Admiral Willard addressed his concerns about the island’s “tipping over” as if they were meant literally)"
I love this article and enjoyed it and the writing style, but I wish we would stop countering bad-faith arguments with bad-faith, or in the case of the comments, assumptions of complete stupidity.
Gohmert, who asked about “moving the moon”, knows very well that task is beyond our capabilities. He was suggesting that effecting the earths climate -at all- is beyond our capabilities. He’s completely wrong, and being a jerk, but he didn’t genuinely ask if we could move the moon.
This reminds me of when the last president said “I could shoot someone and still be popular” and people genuinely thought he literally meant that. Being an asshole is worth calling out - we don’t have to pretend they’re completely brain dead. The more interesting conversation is: can the BLM and forestry services effectively curb climate change with a bigger budget?
In this case it was malice, and not stupidity, although the rule of assumption stands - this is the exception to that rule. One could argue being unaware of how we -do- effect the climate is stupidity, and I’d agree - but if you comment “this guy really thinks we can move the moon!?!??!” You’re falling into a well constructed trap designed to prevent a real conversation between the isles.
> During a congressional hearing last week, Republican Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas asked a U.S. Forest Service official if her organization or the Bureau of Land Management could change the orbit of the moon or Earth to reverse the effects of human-caused climate change. ...
Given the political affiliation and lack of context for the questioning, my assumption was that Gohmert was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to think that people can act on a scale large enough to affect the planet. This applies both ways: to create climate change or to reverse its effects.
The man may indeed be dumb as a bag of rocks, but without some more context to this exchange there's no way to know.
This reminds me of the famous SpongeBob episode[0] where Patrick, in a desperate attempt to save the town, suggests they "take Bikini Bottom and push it somewhere else".
18 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] threadWhat are we (the U.S.) doing that results largely in the pool of political candidates comprised of people who are so out of touch with reality and lack basic common sense? How do we instead incentivise our best minds to run for office?
1. https://youtu.be/X5dkqUy7mUk
Stop electing the idiots when they run?
Almost all problems in democracy start with education.
After reading the Snopes page on the comment, clearly it was deadpan humor that for some reason people made way too much of.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tipping-point/
"Only Johnson knows for sure what he was thinking as he questioned Admiral Willard, and he later claimed he was “speaking metaphorically” and “kidding” (although critics noted no trace of humor was apparent in his words, tone, or body language, nor did he react or offer correction when Admiral Willard addressed his concerns about the island’s “tipping over” as if they were meant literally)"
It's just a big cloud of gas, after all.
That worries me far more than the prospect of anyone actually trying to implement this spectacularly stupid idea.
Gohmert, who asked about “moving the moon”, knows very well that task is beyond our capabilities. He was suggesting that effecting the earths climate -at all- is beyond our capabilities. He’s completely wrong, and being a jerk, but he didn’t genuinely ask if we could move the moon.
This reminds me of when the last president said “I could shoot someone and still be popular” and people genuinely thought he literally meant that. Being an asshole is worth calling out - we don’t have to pretend they’re completely brain dead. The more interesting conversation is: can the BLM and forestry services effectively curb climate change with a bigger budget?
In this case it was malice, and not stupidity, although the rule of assumption stands - this is the exception to that rule. One could argue being unaware of how we -do- effect the climate is stupidity, and I’d agree - but if you comment “this guy really thinks we can move the moon!?!??!” You’re falling into a well constructed trap designed to prevent a real conversation between the isles.
Given the political affiliation and lack of context for the questioning, my assumption was that Gohmert was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to think that people can act on a scale large enough to affect the planet. This applies both ways: to create climate change or to reverse its effects.
The man may indeed be dumb as a bag of rocks, but without some more context to this exchange there's no way to know.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0sTNLdNhuE