Goalposts moved. GTFO, Amanda.
Amanda Marcotte had me right until the end of her article. As a writer who occasionally *ahem* goes a bit off the rails, I think I’m qualified to notice when another does the same. She had such a compelling case, then derailed it by essentially lambasting all conservatives on the anti-science front and establishing a pattern on the left predicated on two examples. That was just silly.
Even though these arguments get derailed and digressive with various people moving goal posts and refusing to stay on-topic (because they know they will lose the argument if they do), the fact of the matter is that the willingness of liberal thought leaders to stay firm about science in the face of panics that are based on deep-rooted but irrational fears about “purity” and “nature” demonstrates a real integrity that the left has that the right is simply missing.
Now, didn’t she just moments ago suggest that when someone moves the goalposts, it’s argument over, GTFO? Why, yes. Yes she did.
The first time the goal posts move, the argument is over. Defend your initial position or GTFO.
If her point is to be taken at face value, then where are the liberal leaders who are calling for a scientifically consistent position on the GMO non-issue? She cites Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ezra Klein, but they are thought leaders, in her parlance. Are there others, ones in office? She doesn’t mention them. It’s her article. She should have looked into that. Last I checked, I respect both of the people she cites, but neither is a leader, per se, at least in the sense I got from her use of the term in relation to conservatives.
Meanwhile, there are certainly conservatives, leaders and thought leaders both, that acknowledge the reality of climate change and seek to influence conservative opinion on the subject. Paul Douglas is one. Of course, then there’s Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). Whether or not someone likes them or their politics is beside the point. They may be few and far between, but they are conservatives who stand with the scientific consensus, even if they disagree with the left in terms of correct and adequate policy prescriptions to address the issue. Oh, and they’re actually leaders.
As to the esteemed Neil deGrasse Tyson’s point, I believe him to be spot on.