Friday, April 1, 2011

Why are some men so incredibly ignorant and yet convinced they're not only intelligent, but capable of demonstrating wise expertise when all they're actually doing is shoveling out CRAP? To George Monbiot: Please shut the fuck up and just listen to Helen Calidott

banner is from here
I was watching a somewhat typical tv-induced debate on Democracy Now!, being annoyed with the same old format, of having two talking heads who obviously are going to disagree, and then we get to watch them disagree, and that becomes "the show". And instead we could have had the more intelligent, wise, compassionate, humane person on the show alone, not debating.

(Above: "Prescription for Survival": A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy Between Anti-Coal Advocate George Monbiot and Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott.)

Helen Caldicott is one of the most informed people on the matter of nuclear power and its dangers. We might also consult Dr. Vandana Shiva on the hazards of Western white male supremacist science generally. Why it is this white man, George Monbiot, thinks he can debate Dr. Caldicott and sound at all reasonable, intelligent, compassionate, or humane is beyond me. Yet, he does go on and on as if he has something important and "experty" to say.

Using radioactive isotopes like iodine, cesium, uranium, and plutonium to heat water and make energy (or to 'win' war) has to be one of the most stupid and inhumane ideas-in-practice in the entire history of White Man's science and culture--and there are a lot of contenders for the most stupid and inhumane ideas-in-practice. That some white men defend other white men's use of these ideas-in-practice only shows that white men have each other's backs even when white men are stupid and inhumane--perhaps ESPECIALLY when white men are stupid and inhumane.

Goddess help us all and save us from these men who actually believe wars can be "just", nuclear power can be "safe", and capitalism and patriarchy and can be moral or humane.


Dark Daughta said...

i saw that debate, too. i watched him attempt to weave undermining words grounded in his supposed intellect around her in ways meant to undermine her knowledge, her expertise. i saw him attempt to make her seem less knowledgeable rather than addressing the points she raised. it's fairly common among white men, most men for them to, in a debate scenario, whether its been agreed upon or whether they've created it because the debating format, so emotionless, so supposedly grounded in logic, gives them massive amounts of space to reinforce ideas about wimmin being hysterically emotional creatures who do not pay attention to facts or logic...the logic of men, whatever they decide is logical. she stumbled a little near the end when he fully attacked so verbally aggressive, but i think she mostly held her own against a lying, cold, clearly illogical and sociopathic opponent.

Julian Real said...

Yes, Dark Daughta,

He was so sociopathic, but can actually be seen as many as "rational", "intelligent", and "posing important challenges".

It's so fucking aggravating, seeing the media--including Democracy Now!, use that tired old pro-white male supremacist format.

Dark Daughta said...

i'd have to agree. i'm really wondering why it is that democracynow uses that debate format but does not enforce any rules of engagement. there is no way he should have been speaking to her in the sneering way he did. i came across his blogsite today directed there by mostly water. i was surprised. but then i remembered that just because a man is a lefty doesn't mean that he's not a pig when it comes to engaging with wimmin around the issues when they disagree with him. so very few radical profeminist men. so many lefty males with no patriarchal analysis needing to be completely reigned in.