I mean, just watch Matt Taibbi debate David Ray Griffin and you'll see the modesty of the debunkers and the arrogance of the "truthers" -- or something like that, anyway. Or better yet, check out the Democracy Now episode where the Loose Change kids debate the "scientists" (as Cracked calls these non PhD's whose career was spent editing "how to build your own soapbox racer") of Popular Mechanics.
______________________________________

I vented on the previous thread [link@sig] along this line, and your response here couldn't be more welcome.

There's abrasive self-righteousness on both "sides", sorry to say. Still, it's a drag when otherwise intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful commenters switch to self-righteous feces-flinging in the form of rank, lame, leaden sarcasm.

Your reference to the Taibbi/Griffin debate also caught my eye. A relative living in France-- a fellow "truther", if I may risk using the term to denote non-obsessed fanatics-- happened to see that exact video. I had occasionally recommended Taibbi's political colums to him, but he didn't make the connection between those and the debater. With good reason, unfortunately.

He had the exact same reaction about their respective demeanors; whatever the validity of his work, Dr. Jones modestly and straightforwardly expressed rational arguments. And then, this jackass would just take off with nasty, jeering outbursts of incredulity without even trying to respond to Jones' points.

Like you-- when you were a teenager, was the way he put it. Ahem. He remarked that if one watched the "debate" it wasn't at all obvious that the professor was supposed to be the "nut".

Actually, Taibbi fits the same profile as the comments Debunklowns, as I've come to call them. I'm glad he's back in form tackling the economic "conspiracy", since he only embarrasses himself as a Debunklown.

Thanks again, 23... can I call you "23"? Like CarolofCarol Dancing with TumTum, it's gratifying to read your sane and thoughtful response.

• I think that having your brains blown out in 1963 is finally starting to catch up with you, Mr. President.

• It's just pathetic that Truther-mockers so frequently resort to banal satire that's as lame as it is leaden; the yocks are on a par with Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza in "Mouthpiece Theater" [link@sig]. The fundamental emptiness of the mockery isn't improved when reinforcements arrive to gang-bang the Truther(s) and congratulate each other for their expert understanding of Science.

Without getting into the controversial and problematic merits of the actual question, it never seems to occur to those who comment as would-be exasperated adults, yet with jeering adolescent sarcasm, that their tawdry satires could easily be written in reverse.

The anti-Truthers now add "Cracked" to the list of unimpeachable media authorities that already includes NOVA, Popular Mechanics, and National Geographic.

I suppose it could be argued that the 9/11 Commission Report was a sort of an anti-Truther satire itself. And it's worth noting that the exotic "tinfoil" speculations breed all the more in an absence of responsible comprehensive investigation.

The pious "I'm a real scientific authority" or "I don't do 'conspiracies'" anti-Truthers can just as easily made to seem foolish or ridiculous. The anti-Truthers, by default, are stuck with the incredible and woefully incomplete Report-- it's just that they don't really want to discuss it in the first place, since there's Nothing to be Gained by Irresponsible Speculation.

Apart from the physical destruction of the buildings, Science has to explain away hundreds of inconvenient discrepancies to make the Official Version plausible; thus, Science proves that it's not only perfectly possible for a passport to survive intact and undamaged in a massive crash and conflagration, but that it's also unremarkable that this crucial item was discovered by authorities.

And that's just one tiny surd in the mix. Even Science can't disconnect all of the anomalous coincidental dots that surrounded this day, e.g. unusual financial market transactions, military exercises, etc. Again, this is not the place to expand on such irregularities.

And yet it's said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Newspeak: paradoxically
English: obviously, expectedly
_____________________________

I heard someone on teevee last night-- can't remember the context-- assert that many poor and displaced persons in New Orleans have literally pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to survive in the absence of government assistance.

I was hoping for video to substantiate this remarkable feat-- it sounds like something only a yogi or dervish could accomplish.

This reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld's "of all the numbers they could have chosen..." comment about then-Bell Telephone's choice of "star 69" return-call option: "Star 69? Star sixty-nine! Didn't anybody at Bell go to junior high?"

Speaking of defective Scandanavian products, I tuned out of Garrison Keillor after he published his inane and offensive piece recommending that Amerika stop dwelling on icky stuff like government-sanctioned torture and crimes against humanity.

We'd all be better off as easygoing cultural dilettantes instead of angry self-appointed inquisitors, dontcha know. Life's too short!

But I digress. I mention Keillor because I did read the comments threads generated by the above-cited atrocity, and the comments blowback that persisted for weeks.

Some graduate student ought to analyze Salon comments threads to see if they break down to a "Rule of Three". There seem to be distinct groups or categories: smart-ass counter-satire; straightforward helpful advice; scathing putdowns.

The "scathing putdown" group may be further divided between those lashing out at the author of the piece, and those lashing out at other commenters.

And there are always a few who are perfectly happy with the subject of the discussion, the author's work, and Salon's choosing to publish it. 'Tis a gift to be simple.

In the present case, many others besides myself noticed that this article reads like fifteen-years stale topical humor. Now that I've perused the comments, I'm considering another possibility:

This IKEA piece may be a trial balløøn to see if Salon readership is ready for a real cutting-edge exposé: Craig Davidson takes on Restoration Hardware!