I responded.

I want to preface what's below by saying I am a flawed individual.

*****

[Redacted], not that anything I could possibly say could sway you since you already have your mind made up on so many things including the issue of global warming, but for anyone else out there who isn't a partisan lunatic, the results for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) are in. In case, you didn't know what BEST was, it's a non-partisan, non-political, independent study that was designed to appease global warming skeptics. The research was bankrolled by skeptic Charles Koch and headed by another skeptic Richard Muller. Before the research even began, the project was given a seal of approval by the vehement skeptic Anthony Watts, who said, "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong," and Fred Singer, another cynic said, "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project – a very difficult but important undertaking." Basically, the project was designed to control for variables the deniers had pointed out.

Well, the results are in. And they are pretty much the same results of previous research. Google it. The findings are in the process of being peer-reviewed. The once vocal critic Muller wrote an op-ed in the WSJ a few days ago titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." Google that too.

Now, if you're a person who examines evidence to form an opinion and not someone who denies data that doesn't tell you what your opinion is already, here is the research. I'll kindly share it with you. If you're on the fence about the issue and aren't swayed either way, I hope these new findings can help you make up your mind. If you're a skeptic open to changing your mind after reading the research, I applaud you. And if you're a skeptic still not convinced, perhaps we could have a discussion about the issue without engaging in the divisive, polarization that's out of control in today's politics.

But then again, if you're someone who goes around first calling me delusional and then cries foul for "a cheap and uncalled for insult" when I insult you right back, if you're someone who calls me delusional after debunking claims that were never even made in the first place (I didn't say China is a free market, I said the free market inevitably leads to someone getting abused, and US companies going to China to employ Chinese workers is an example of a global free trade economy), and if you're someone who tells me to go and do my homework when in fact I have, then kiss my f*cking ass.

Go and do YOUR homework, son.

In his book "You Can Negotiate Anything," Herb Cohen explains that a key principle to a successful negotiation is to "assume that the other side always has to go back for final approval. Hence help them with the packaging so they not only 'save face' but appear to have done well." Essentially, the principle is that you want to do your very best, but you don't want to do so well that you humiliate the opposing party. You have to leave them an out; a way to exit the exchange gracefully as to save face.

I don't negotiate much for a living, but I've always thought this was really useful when applied to social interactions – specifically when debating people. When you're pretty damn sure you're right about a topic (and I realize how incredibly conceited that sounds, because there are always shades of grey, but just imagine a scenario when you're pretty damn sure you're right), you can't make it your objective to embarrass someone for being on the wrong side of the barn. You have to consider the person's feelings. In refuting their beliefs, you gotta leave them a way to exit the exchange gracefully as to save face.

But then again, I'm human and have limits. I have good days and bad days. Sometimes, I lose my cool and my bad side comes out. Then any thought of leaving them an out or displaying social grace just goes out the window. "Fuck this," I say to myself, "I just want to DESTROY some muhfukkas." It's then that I switch gears from engaging in civil discourse to wanting to utterly shatter their emotional and physical being until they are crying and left in pieces. I want to snatch their ignorance from them and slap them across the face with it repeatedly – backhand, forehand, backhand, forehand. I want to encage them in a room with Truth and Logic, and I want these two agents of reason to provide a methodical, rational beatdown until they are begging for the factual pummeling to stop.

I try not to let this side of me come to the surface often, but this sorta happened this weekend when I was having a debate with two friends on Facebook. I know, I know. Internet debates? I should know better, but I really felt the need to respond in this instance.

So, keep in mind, the debate was already heated to begin with amongst me and these two friends, and I am trying my best to walk that fine line between being assertive and being rude. But then out of no where a friend of one of those friends (as in a complete stranger to me) jumps in, misses the point I'm making entirely, says that I claimed China was a free market when in fact I did not, then goes on to dispute the statement I never even said like the moron that he is by asserting unequivocally in capital letters CHINA IS NOT A FREE MARKET, which is debatable if he knew anything about the subject and wasn't such a Republican troll, and then says, "You are seriously delusional" and tells me to "Go and do your homework son."

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!

God, I so wanted to rage-write him a longass response detailing everything I found wrong about his existence in the realm we call this universe including the fact that he did not use a comma between "homework" and "son," but instead, I tried to be nice and wrote, "[Redacted], god you are dumb. I hope you don't breed another moron like yourself."

Ok, fine. I didn't try to be nice. But at least I didn't go full rage mode on him. I semi-kept-my-cool, merely offering him the advice that he probably shouldn't procreate for the overall good of mankind.

Anyway, so the debate with my other friend goes on, and I happen to use an analogy involving the issue of global warming, which is when the complete stranger jumps in again, addressing me directly, and says:

"If [Gravity] did his own research, he would find out that the global warming scam is yet another lie being fed to us through the television via Al Gore and the UN, and bringing it up debases any credibility that he may have had after that cheap and uncalled for insult."

I just... can't... Wow... Brain... Hurts... Reading... Calls me out... for a "cheap and uncalled for insult"... When he was the one... who originally insulted me by calling me delusional... Global warming... scam???... Brain... Melting... Fist... Curling... Faith in humanity... dying... Other fist... Curling...

I'm not sure how to respond or if I'll respond. Is there any point responding to someone like this? I also don't want to humiliate a friend of a friend who probably sides with his politics anyway on her public Facebook page.

Where is @leprovocateur when you need her? She knows how to deal with these kinds of situations.

A friend sent me an article titled "What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs" from gawker.com (link) that brings up the controversial aspect of Jobs' life and impact on the world. One of the points the author brings up is that Jobs did nothing to improve the condition of sweatshops, child labor, and human rights in China despite having an enormous amount of wealth and leverage in negotiations to have done just that.

It's a fair point, one I would agree with, but it made me think of a Jobs quote that I think hits how I really feel about the issue. Jobs once said,

"When you're young, you look at television and think, "There's a conspiracy! The networks have conspired to dumb us down." But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."

People who talk about caring about the plight of Chinese factory workers probably own many things, not just Apple branded, made in Chinese factories with horrible working conditions. But are they willing to pay $1000 for an iPad instead of $500? $100 for a pair of jeans instead of $50? $400 for a smartphone instead of $200?

No. They are not. In the end, Apple is just giving us what we want.

And that's the far more depressing thought.