Deleted Comments Of The Week: In Which The League Of The South Weeps And Whines

Gosh golly, Wonkers, have we got a fine load of Dumbth for you this week! We heard from global warming deniers, a creationist, an anti-vaxxer, and a genuine neo-Confederate Southern Patriot who apparently does not actually realize which side lost the War of Southern Treason. Obviously, we need to start with that special snowflake first. Our Friday story about the League of the South's Lincoln's-Birthday commemoration of John Wilkes Boothdrew a comment from one "Pat Hines," who has featured inprevious Dear Shitferbrains columns. 

[contextly_sidebar id="jfid7AQDVaNov1XEqqeNzeI4hkAn4hWS"]

He's a very important person in the League of the South, or at least is using the same name as one -- turns out that Pat Hines is the Vice Chairman of the South Carolina LOSers, a job that appears mostly to involve writing comments on websites about how the LOS will one day repel the invading forces of the United States and would be OK with burning a few schools down -- with children inside -- if necessary.

He's also fond of using the term "Southrons," which sounds vaguely robotic to us. Now that we've finally Googled the man, we'll be sure to treat him with some damn respect, that's for sure. In any case, Mr. Hines does not care for our use of the editorial "we," or for the unmanliness of Northerners, plus a lot of other things:

My, my, what big loud words you have. Who is this "we" of which you speak? That effeminate US president? Don't make me laugh. Y'all should face facts, most of the real men are southern men, that's been true for well over two centuries. Did you know the N.R.A. was started by a group of United States Army officers because the US army troops were such bad shots during their invasion of our country, they died much more often that southern men did? It's true, you can look that up. We have a rich history of achievement in the south, one which virtually no Yankee has equalled and likely never will. Our southern, state supported colleges and universities are older than those of the northern states (Harvard and Dartmouth were Church schools), so any remarks about education levels will be laughed at, as we always do.

We aren't sure if he thinks Lincoln or the current president is the effeminate one, maybe both. In any case, he is partly correct about the formation of the NRA, although the group's founding had less to do with the Union losing more in battle ( around 110,000 combat deaths vs. around 95,000 for the Confederates) than with the fact that Union troops used an awful lot of ammunition in order to kill their targets. So yes, we'll have to concede that if mid-19th-Century marksmanship is indeed the true measure of regional manhood, then alas, Northerners must forever bear a legacy of shame. Frankly, we were so upset by the reminder that we almost wept and drank all night, until we remembered that the article was about some assholes who think Lincoln's assassin was King Shit. Also, that "invasion of our country" was a cute touch. Since Mr. Hines is such an important figure in the neo-secessionist movement, we'll make an exception to our usual "3 strikes" policy and not grace him with the Banhammer of Loving Correction.

Compared to Mr. Hines's idiocy, anti-vaxxers are a breath of fresh air. Just wear a respirator. Our story on Elizabeth Warren asking tough questions about vaccines, like "Oh, hey, those work, don't they?" drew this scoffing reply from "vgnsocjust," who we guess believes vegans will bring social justice (with their proven vegan super-powers ):

Good journalists ask hard questions, not spread propaganda and fear mongering. Facing a 50 million dollar cut to the CDC's vaccination program, what exactly would we expect the director of the CDC to say? Obviously such an individual is not going to acknowledge that someone from her organization leaked documents showing that the MMR vaccine is not safe nor effective. Obviously our representives who are lobbied by big pharma are not going to ask questions about it either.

Yep, you heard it here first: Elizabeth Warren, Pawn of Big Pharma. And we're not sure who vgnsocjust is referring to with that "journalist" stuff -- Elizabeth Warren is not a journalist, and we're just an ugly vile little snark mob.

[contextly_sidebar id="IouCDzobprhSYWKn8r27L3z6pLFeHV6B"]

We also got these notes from "jowlvivid69," who at least has an entertaining username, about our story on an alleged "measles party" that a Marin County, California, woman says she was invited to.

[contextly_sidebar id="xS4RQaJDjvatIfE3eGpqksWOIzSqZhZ6"]

While our article expressed some skepticism about the story, noting that only KQED in San Francisco had reported on it, jowlvivid69 apparently felt that we hadn't been quite skeptical enough:

Aside from this being a proven urban myth, it's illogical on its face. 1) There are no people who are contagious with measles in Marin County. Two Marin resident children from the same family got it at Disneyland and never exposed anyone in the county. 2) Measles parties have never existed for the reason people are hysterical about it now - it's highly contagious. Before a vaccine was available, entire cohorts would get it. There would be no reason to have a "party". 3) No one wants their kid to get measles. But there are people who have different opinions about how to keep them from getting it. The notion that someone would intentionally give their kids measles is not rational.

We would point out, again, that the original article did note that we found "many exciting articles about measles parties, but no evidence of actual measles-oriented social occasions, YET." As to the notion that no rational person would ever give their kid measles, we would like to note that there are plenty of irrational folks out there, including the author of  Melanie's Marvelous Measles,  which advocates doing exactly that. Still, we hope that jowlvivid69 is correct and that we haven't yet reached Peak Stupid. After all, the 2016 Republican primaries haven't even started yet.

We also heard from "tjguy," who we guess is a creationist, and just wanted to let us know that we are all A Idiot for buying Carnival Cruises' pro-evolution propaganda, as conveyed in a John F. Kennedy quote.

[contextly_sidebar id="ooLf9t3WCfK3APMg4zaPjwRNbujZNl6F"]

Tjguy started with a Science Gotcha calling out JFK for being just plain wrong:

How many here believe this statement? " it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears."

It might make for a nice metaphor about the human desire to go down to the sea in ships (or maybe just down on Marilyn Monroe), but no, it's a myth -- the concentration of salt in seawater is much higher than the saline content of blood. We didn't bother checking the levels for sweat or tears, but Kennedy was passing on a folk belief, not Science. Therefore, evolution is a dirty lie, obviously. Tjguy called out all of us idiots for uncritically accepting such bad science, especially one person who said that using the JFK quote in an ad "might be a little tacky, but it was neither incorrect nor misleading." This got a great big Aha! from tjguy:

Louis, your post is proof of the effectiveness of the tv ad. You believed it -- hook, line, and sinker! If the tv says it, if JFK claims it -- that human blood has the exact same percentage of salt as sea water, then by golly, it's gotta be true! Carnival Cruise ought to have egg all over it's face for propagating this evolutionary myth! Instead, you claim it was neither incorrect or misleading. You are supporting this myth! Why? Aren't you on the side of science? Come on. Everyone criticizes creationists for being anti-science, but then they turn right around and propagate myths like this that are easily shown to be false. You can believe what you want to about humans originating from fish in the sea, but at least I would think you would want to use accurate science to make your case! But if the "fact" supports evolutionary paradigm, it is all too often uncritically accepted as true. Why? Because of your faith and trust in "science". Sad to say you have been taken on this one. I wonder how many other "facts" out there that you use to support your belief in abiogenesis are also false and waiting to be debunked. I just think it is quite telling that you don't even question the "science" but immediately jump all over creationists and ridicule them assuming they are wrong! Has your commitment to be skeptical turned into blind faith in whatever "fact" claims evolutionists make?

We suppose we might be a little more worried that evolutionary theory was on its last legs if the claim had appeared in Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot instead of in a Super Bowl ad. For what it's worth, P.Z. Myers thought the ad was stupid, too. And yet he stubbornly refuses to admit that evolution is entirely based on faith!

And while we're on the topic of fake science, how about that completely-made-up "global warming?" Our piece last week about the latest claim that climate scientists are just faking itwas not appreciated by "BradF333," who is quite sure that 97% of climate scientists are charlatans, and that columnist Christopher Booker is the last honest man for exposing the data-fiddling ofeveryone working in climate science. Brad sent two comments:

• This is just plain silly. The rebuttal to the claim that the data is being fiddled with has already been destroyed, but of course you wouldn't mention that because anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar. Wow! This is really interesting, does this mean that I can call anyone who disagrees with me a liar. If so, media matters are the biggest liars in media; they never agree with me.

• Booker is one of the few doing honest research, but going against a "science consensus" is dangerous work. Faux scientists really don't like their sloppy work, or data changing to be questioned.

It sure was nice of BradF333 to include a link to the destroyment of the rebuttal of the claim, wasn't it? Look, it was destroyed, it just was, and the science cabal is just sloppy and terrible and wants to take away our SUVs.

[contextly_sidebar id="yNrfbp57stKzhfipYs8Oqtrp3HhLnpnI"]

We also got a very belated reply to a June 2014 piece on Florida Congresslackwit Jeff Miller, who explained that since the dinosaurs died out without any cars driving around causing global warming, then we have nothing to worry about, because climate just changes from time to time.

[contextly_sidebar id="gYhWxkYzoWUuwK8dE6RxMqnnNCanzawv"]

Yes, he really said that. That prompted this observation from "wml123":

The congressman may well be an idiot, but his point about climate changing is true. Yes, climate changes. I'm not talking about weather. Climate changes naturally. Nothing to do with mankind. Climate changes. In fact, the most usual climate for our world is an Ice Age. We are currently experiencing one of the relatively rare warming periods. Pick on him about how the dinosaurs died out if you want. But the meteor impact theory is not all that old. How long until scientists change their mind again and decide that something else killed off the dinosaurs? We need to work to save the planet from global warming not because it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt but, rather, because it is quite likely true. Why risk doing nothing? Our form of government is particularly unready to handle a problem like global warming. It is very reactionary and will not act to solve any problem until somebody somewhere is feeling the pain. With this problem, that may well be too late.

We like that wml123 wants to do something about the climate, but if we're not so crazy about the suggestion that we don't really know why it's happening, and that the science on the human effect on climate is questionable -- if that's truly unclear, then what are we supposed to do, besides abandon Miami (not that that's an altogether bad idea in itself)? Moving to higher ground and continuing to spew CO2 isn't really much of a solution to "save the planet" -- which, we should note, will be just fine, although a bunch of species, including the one that's so fond of coal-fired electricity generation, are in dicey shape over the long term.

And finally, one weirdass letter from "Albertggggg," which arrived recently, in response -- logically enough -- to a 2011 piece aboutMichael Moore and Occupy Wall Street. 

[contextly_sidebar id="I0HrZe9U5D0ZtOkMUeMyuJCx34XcoUxg"]

It seems Albertggggg has some issues with Fox News, but not the ones we usually talk about here:

Why does no one question the "program" of FOX AFFILIATES? On their "news" channel they promote "conservative" values and all that. But turn to FOX ENTERTAINMENT and they are pushing GLEE, FAMILY GUY, and numerous other shows propagandizing FOR homosexuality, pedophilia, drug abuse, and all the things FOX NEWS claims to be against. Yet their viewers sit like unquestioning slugs and parrot the PARTY LINE. NOW they have "Fox Latino," A COMPLETE SELL-OUT of the FOX NEWS followers, this channel SUPPORTS ILLEGALS. I have said it before, FOX promotes a PSEUDO-conservative-to-the-point-of-clowning view on their news, and FAR LEFT LIBERAL view on their entertainment channels. I watched "BONES" last night (10-9-2014), it was an hour of ANTI-Conservative propaganda/indoctrination. They cast the right-wing airwaves as calous-hate-mongering-mercenaries who not only spread hate and meanness, but do it strictly for the money they can make and do not even "believe" the "foul filth" they spew. "BONES" was one long preachy pontification about how evil AND STUPID all conservatives are.even as the "good SCIENTISTS" reveled in minutely examining the putrid remains of the EVIL conservative. "BONES" also groveled over the "BEAUTY" of the main, at best COMMON looking, character, as if she is some beauty queen, actually they went into regular self-love-rapture over ALL their own marvelous BEAUTY, repeatedly praising one-another's "marvelous good looks".

So, yeah, a comment sent in January 2015 that says he watched Bones "last night," in October. We googled the first sentence of the comment, and yes, apparently this guy has been sending it all over the place in reply to any article that mentions Fox. Sure, it's spam, but it's not machine spam, it's lovingly-handcrafted pissed-off wackaloon spam from a guy whose previous IntenseDebate comment history was mostly about how much he hates the Zionist Entity in the Middle East. Nice to see he's branched out. We don't normally run spam here, but thought you, the reader, might find it useful to know that Fox is actually a FAR LEFT LIBERAL organization that is secretly on our side -- that means we've won the Culture War, right?

DON'T PANIC

Also, too, we are finally making our long-threatened comment system switch from IntenseDebate, which has not been supported by its manufacturer forever, to Disqus. Please remain calm -- if you don't already have a Disqus account, you will need to make one. If you made one in the past and don't remember what it was or what the password was, here's a helpy page. 

Also, too, we have migrated the old IntenseDebate comments into our archived articles, through some Majicks that Shy understands. The most recent comments will be added shortly. To merge your comments listed as "guest" with your real Disqus account, here's another explainer. 

We look forward to your comments on this piece, some of which may actually be about the deleted comments.