Thoughts

Had an assignment to thoughtfully analyze the strengths and downfalls of a climate change contrarian argument. The source given was Singer and Avery 2007. I only had three pages, but I had a lot more to say. Their chapter looks like a war zone now that I got done reading it from all the notes and highlights I wrote. I really find it unfathomable that pieces of shit literature like this get published and people take them at face value. Original Source:  Singer,    Avery. 2007. Chapter 3: Shattered Glass in The Greenhouse Theory. In: Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Plymoth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p 35-44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shattered Glass Still Traps Heat Taken at face value, climate change contrarian arguments can have a visceral strength to them. They often use rhetoric implying ad hominem such as “climate change alarmists” or “scaremongers”, while referring to themsel

 The reason white people can't use the n word is because it is terribly offensive. I tend to make a cross reference to the word queer when talking about this. 50 years ago the word queer was terribly offensive, but over much work and dedication, the LGBTQ community has reclaimed the word as their own, even dedicating fields to "queer studies" and pins that defiantly say "queer as fuck" which I love. When a community reclaims a word that used to be used against them, it makes the word lose power. A similar reclamation has happened with the n word in African American communities. By calling each other it as a way of saying bro or homie, it makes the word lose it's sting. We as white people sound fundamentally stupid using the n word for a variety of reasons. 1, there is nothing cool about white people using a word that relates to a legacy of slavery and slave violence to people who's great grandparents endured years of terrible indentured servitude. Us cal