›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Buzz Aldrining

RymRym
edited August 2009 in Politics
Occasionally, a politician will drop the typical politeness and guarded opinion that is so common and infuriating, instead reacting to idiots in a manner proper their station.

Barney Frank:
nYlZiWK2Iy8

Bill Clinton:
3ROwxGR85YY

Much like our use of "Randi," I am going to start using "Buzz Aldrin" as a verb. The definition is something along the lines of:
Buzz Aldrin (verb)To, upon reaching the conclusion that the person with whom you are debating is incapable of rational discourse, eschew further discussion in favor of public ridicule or hilarious violence.
Observe the first Buzz Aldrining by, of course, Buzz Aldrin:
ZOo6aHSY8hU

I'm of the mind that rational discourse with patently irrational people is fruitless. I'm furthermore of the mind that there is no longer a place for the polite and tacit social acceptance of patently ludicrous ideas held in the face of real evidence to the contrary. Any time you let an insane assertion stand unchallenged, you are implicitly accepting it. We need to end this.
«1

Comments

  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited August 2009
    I'm of the mind that rational discourse with patently irrational people is fruitless. I'm furthermore of the mind that there is no longer a place for the polite and tacit social acceptance of patently ludicrous ideas held in the face of real evidence to the contrary.
    tl;dr: Sometimes you gotta punch a motherfucker.

    EDIT: "Buzz Aldrining" is a bit of a cumbersome phrase. How about "Buzzing" or "Aldrining?"
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2009
    That sort of thing has become a noticeable trend. I can remember a time when the people who formed some crazy idea like "Obama should not be president because he is not a natural born citizen" would simply be ignored. That was because the news media and the general public used to have some respect for demonstrable facts. Now it seems as though the news media think that it's their role to referee a "debate" between this or whatever other wacky theory there might exist in the name of being "balanced", so it's not unusual to see a group of "ancient astronaut" idiots with their own special on The History Channel saying to any silly scientists who doubt them that, since their theories cannot be disproved, they must be respected and given credence.

    I had a disturbing hearing this week in which the public defender said that the person who I was trying to keep in the hospital was acting crazy because she was intoxicated with PCP. Of course, the actual evidence that was presented was that there were two (2) toxicology screens done on two (2) different dates by two (2) different hospitals using two (2) different labs. There was nothing about wither toxicology screen that showed any trace of PCP in this person's body. Furthermore, her treating psychiatrist testified that (1) the person had a history of mental illness, (2) her psychotic symptoms wax and wane, which is what you'd expect from a person with bipolar disease with manic symptoms, but not from a person who was intoxicated with PCP, and (3) the person reported to the psychiatrist that she had not ingested PCP. However, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the publidc defender obstinately presevered in her baseless argument that the person was intoxicated with PCP. It was infuriating, but at least there was a judge that respected facts and found that there was no evidence of PCP intoxication, although she allowed the argument to go on and on.

    I thought that hearing was like a microcosm of conspiracy theories. The public defender kept insisting there was PCP intoxication although the overwhelming weight of evidence showed that there was none. If there hadn't been a judge to make a final decision, that is if we had been on some sort of TV show, that's where it would have ended. The position that there was PCP intoxication would have been presented as a valid viewpoint even though the facts didn't support it, and after the show, you would have seen websites spring up talking about how PCP intoxicated this person was and how the government was somehow trying to cover it up.

    I think that this rejection of demonstrable fact is a symptom of something larger at work in society. I'm fear that we're moving away from a literate, fact-based, science-respecting society towards an oral-tradition society that gives the most credence to whichever "side" of an "argument" is presented by the people who look the prettiest and/or who can yell the loudest.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • ChurbaChurba
    My housemate and her boyfriend are die-hard 9/11 conspiracy nuts - Her boyfriend, I think, I'm am slowly converting, however, my housemate avoids learning anything(and brags about it, that she's so intelligent, she doesn't need to learn anything *eyeroll*) and won't be brought around to reason no matter how much you thump it into her head.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    My housemate and her boyfriend are die-hard 9/11 conspiracy nuts - Her boyfriend, I think, I'm am slowly converting, however, my housemate avoids learning anything(and brags about it, that she's so intelligent, she doesn't need to learn anything *eyeroll*) and won't be brought around to reason no matter how much you thump it into her head.
    Well, that's what I fear. We're devolving into a society based on oral tradition (TV, Movies, youtube) that has less respect for fact than it has for what is "felt in the gut." If I "know in my gut" that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, or that we didn't land on the moon, or that evolution is wrong, or Obama was born in Kazakhstan, then the "facts" will never sway me, because facts are not so important in such a society. What is important is how you are made to feel by the storyteller as you sit around the campfire (or monitor). If the storyteller is pleasing to you, you might just end up being convinced of ancient astronauts, crop circles, or any other sort of craziness.
  • RymRym
    "Buzz Aldrining" is a bit of a cumbersome phrase. How about "Buzzing" or "Aldrining?"
    I like its cumbersomeness. It adds an air of cromulence, and the comedic meter of the full name is too good to pass up.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Well, that's what I fear. We're devolving into a society based on oral tradition (TV, Movies, youtube) that has less respect for fact than it has for what is "felt in the gut." If I "know in my gut" that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, or that we didn't land on the moon, or that evolution is wrong, or Obama was born in Kazakhstan, then the "facts" will never sway me, because facts are not so important in such a society. What is important is how you are made to feel by the storyteller as you sit around the campfire (or monitor). If the storyteller is pleasing to you, you might just end up being convinced of ancient astronauts, crop circles, or any other sort of craziness.
    That gives me an idea....I'll use Penn and Teller's 9/11 episode of BS as a litmus test for this.

    Also this
    Obama was born in Kazakhstan
    Gave me a laughing fit as I imagined some unholy cross between Borat and Obama.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Well, that's what I fear. We're devolving into a society based on oral tradition (TV, Movies, youtube) that has less respect for fact than it has for what is "felt in the gut." If I "know in my gut" that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, or that we didn't land on the moon, or that evolution is wrong, or Obama was born in Kazakhstan, then the "facts" will never sway me, because facts are not so important in such a society. What is important is how you are made to feel by the storyteller as you sit around the campfire (or monitor). If the storyteller is pleasing to you, you might just end up being convinced of ancient astronauts, crop circles, or any other sort of craziness.
    This is the problem with our society. When in doubt, make shit up, but convincingly.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    image
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    LOL
  • ΣπεκωσποκΣπεκωσποκ
    Buzz Aldrin is not always so rational and logical himself, though:
  • OzOz
    My ears are now bleeding.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    @trogdor42:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    I think the louder a dining table shouts, the more sense it makes.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited August 2009
    My dad keeps repeating the "obama birth certificate" spiel and "obama socialist healthcare" crap. I feel bad because he is a 49 year old republican who can't be reasoned with and will call it a conspiracy if you show him contradictory evidence or arguments.

    I can't Buzz Aldrin my own dad...
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    I can't Buzz Aldrin my own dad...
    There are some who would say that it's a rite of passage to Buzz Aldrin one's own dad.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    There are some who would say that it's a rite of passage to Buzz Aldrin one's own dad.
    Never had to with my dad...my mom however...
  • ChurbaChurba
    There are some who would say that it's a rite of passage to Buzz Aldrin one's own dad.
    I did, Once. He's a tough old bastard, my old man, and fucking well quicker than he looks.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    image
  • WalkerWalker
    edited August 2009
    I can't Buzz Aldrin my own dad...
    Me and my dad verbally Buzz Aldrin each other (and laugh about it) every day of the week. I think it's his way of being a nurturing teacher of a parent.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    Better than physical violence is simply laughing in an idiots face. Watch them go bonkers as you laugh them off. Maybe that would be a good tactic with a loony dad.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited August 2009
    Better than physical violence is simply laughing in an idiots face. Watch them go bonkers as you laugh them off. Maybe that would be a good tactic with a loony dad.
    My dad is a crazy republican. He calls obama a socialist. He thinks the mostly democrat congress is a liberal plot. He takes advice about the healthcare system from Chuck Norris. He would think the "nazi lady" is a pretty cool dudette. On top of that, he was in the army reserve. If I laughed at his face about his craziness, he would beat me senseless, break my laptop, then throw me out.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Does Jon Stewart interview with Betsy "Euthanasia" McCaughey (Parts 1, 2 and 3) count as Buzz Aldrining?
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Does Jon Stewart interview with Betsy "Euthanasia" McCaughey (Parts1,2and3) count as Buzz Aldrining?
    I don't know, but it sure was uncomfortable.
  • AprecheApreche
    If I laughed at his face about his craziness, he would beat me senseless, break my laptop, then throw me out.
    Let it happen. Then you can have him arrested.
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    If I laughed at his face about his craziness, he would beat me senseless, break my laptop, then throw me out.
    Let it happen. Then you can have him arrested.
    Some of us are financially dependent. I can't wait for university, as I'll have much more freedom to do things my way without them knowing and disapproving. Education first, then FALCON PAUNCH!
  • AprecheApreche
    If I laughed at his face about his craziness, he would beat me senseless, break my laptop, then throw me out.
    Let it happen. Then you can have him arrested.
    Some of us are financially dependent. I can't wait for university, as I'll have much more freedom to do things my way without them knowing and disapproving. Education first, then FALCON PAUNCH!
    Just supporting what I said in the thread comparing communism and fascism. Economic freedom is essential for personal liberty.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Education first, then FALCON PAUNCH!
    If that was deliberate; then, sir, I salute you.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Does Jon Stewart interview with Betsy "Euthanasia" McCaughey (Parts1,2and3) count as Buzz Aldrining?
    I don't know, but it sure was uncomfortable.
    She quit (i.e. got fired) the day after the interview.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited August 2009
    Wouldn't that interview be considered more of a Jeremey Paxmaning?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited August 2009
    If I laughed at his face about his craziness, he would beat me senseless, break my laptop, then throw me out.
    Let it happen. Then you can have him arrested.
    Some of us are financially dependent. I can't wait for university, as I'll have much more freedom to do things my way without them knowing and disapproving. Education first, then FALCON PAUNCH!
    Just supporting what I said in the thread comparing communism and fascism. Economic freedom is essential for personal liberty.
    First: Unless my dad was going to do something to hurt my family, I could never have him arrested. Call it misplaced family loyalty, call it whatever, but that's just the way it is.

    Second: YES, I am very much trying to become financially independent. I've pretty much had enough with my parents expecting me to let them manage my finances. I am nearly 20 years old with a business to run, school loans to save up for, a car to maintain, and personal expenses to cover. I'm not a 5 year old with a piggy bank and a tricycle.

    Third: Scott, You are 100% correct on that subject. That is all.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
Sign In or Register to comment.