• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:03
CEST 16:03
KST 23:03
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20257Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced24BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time I offer completely free coaching services What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 716 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7738

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7736 7737 7738 7739 7740 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 02 2017 16:18 GMT
#154741
On June 03 2017 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture.

That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost.

Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here.


What is it today? Did Trump do another stupid thing in the past 24 hours, or is this still fallout from pulling out of Paris?

Just Paris I'm afraid. But give it a few hours. Soon we'll be back to some covfefe-caliber stories as people get tired of taking Trump seriously.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 02 2017 16:23 GMT
#154742
Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement today fit into a category I will label as QTIIPS.

QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism.

QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.

A policy change is QTIIPS if:
  • its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;
  • it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;
  • supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and
  • a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.


Advocates on either side of a QTIIPS policy change have desired end states that represent fundamentally different policy outcomes. But while the policy gap between their desired end states is measured in miles, on a QTIIPS policy, actual changes are measured in inches. The battle rages over which end state is the right one, but when policy shifts back and forth it changes direction often but moves only a tiny bit each time. Political constraints make the theoretical debate about miles-apart differences irrelevant because neither end state will ever occur, but that does not deter the theoretical war from raging during the real-world battles over a tiny actual change in direction.

If you listened to President Trump’s remarks today you would think staying in the Paris Agreement would destroy the U.S. economy. If you listen to many advocates who support the agreement, you would think you need to start building an ark, soon.

I therefore read the text of the agreement to see for myself. Doing so reinforced the view I developed when the agreement was concluded. Relative to the scope of the problem it is trying to solve, the Paris Agreement is quantitatively trivial. It is a set of weak process agreements, with many areas of ambiguous language and “flexibility” for countries to reinterpret their only loosely binding quantitative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions many years from now.

Keith Hennessey highlights the intersectionality between politics, debate, and impact in the Paris agreement. It reflects the absurdity of imputing symbolic battles to actual battles.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
June 02 2017 16:28 GMT
#154743
On June 03 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement today fit into a category I will label as QTIIPS.

QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism.

QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.

A policy change is QTIIPS if:
  • its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;
  • it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;
  • supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and
  • a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.


Advocates on either side of a QTIIPS policy change have desired end states that represent fundamentally different policy outcomes. But while the policy gap between their desired end states is measured in miles, on a QTIIPS policy, actual changes are measured in inches. The battle rages over which end state is the right one, but when policy shifts back and forth it changes direction often but moves only a tiny bit each time. Political constraints make the theoretical debate about miles-apart differences irrelevant because neither end state will ever occur, but that does not deter the theoretical war from raging during the real-world battles over a tiny actual change in direction.

If you listened to President Trump’s remarks today you would think staying in the Paris Agreement would destroy the U.S. economy. If you listen to many advocates who support the agreement, you would think you need to start building an ark, soon.

I therefore read the text of the agreement to see for myself. Doing so reinforced the view I developed when the agreement was concluded. Relative to the scope of the problem it is trying to solve, the Paris Agreement is quantitatively trivial. It is a set of weak process agreements, with many areas of ambiguous language and “flexibility” for countries to reinterpret their only loosely binding quantitative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions many years from now.

Keith Hennessey highlights the intersectionality between politics, debate, and impact in the Paris agreement. It reflects the absurdity of imputing symbolic battles to actual battles.

Symbolic, maybe, but at least it was a global recognition of the factual world around us and that we need to act. Meanwhile, you're still up there practically denying that climate change will impact our habitat in any significant way, which is why there is a battle in the first place.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
ZeromuS
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada13389 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-02 16:32:55
June 02 2017 16:30 GMT
#154744
But the frustration with Trump's decisions isn't just about his actual impact on the environment.

It is about the symbolic abdication of power and the fact that his position shows that he doesn't even care symbolically about climate change.

Its a signal that the federal US government, while he is in charge, doesn't really support climate action on any level. Thats a bad message to send globally and to the market. Even if the real actual policies aren't very strong behind the treaty, it shows that the US just doesn't care.

That has real political ramifications that go beyond the actual climate accord. Thats the REAL issue.

That whole QTIIPS thing is a deflection of deeper issues.

StrategyRTS forever | @ZeromuS_plays | www.twitch.tv/Zeromus_
Broetchenholer
Profile Joined March 2011
Germany1926 Posts
June 02 2017 16:33 GMT
#154745
Danglers, this is really not complicated. If Trumpo had said "we believe man made climae change is a threat to society and we will fight it through policy but we disagree on the first step, that is the paris agreement. therefore, we step out", this definition would have applied. But the Republicans and Trump disagree on the problem itself, so them not joining a symbolic treaty actually is a big deal.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 02 2017 16:34 GMT
#154746
On June 03 2017 01:28 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:
Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement today fit into a category I will label as QTIIPS.

QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism.

QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.

A policy change is QTIIPS if:
  • its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;
  • it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;
  • supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and
  • a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.


Advocates on either side of a QTIIPS policy change have desired end states that represent fundamentally different policy outcomes. But while the policy gap between their desired end states is measured in miles, on a QTIIPS policy, actual changes are measured in inches. The battle rages over which end state is the right one, but when policy shifts back and forth it changes direction often but moves only a tiny bit each time. Political constraints make the theoretical debate about miles-apart differences irrelevant because neither end state will ever occur, but that does not deter the theoretical war from raging during the real-world battles over a tiny actual change in direction.

If you listened to President Trump’s remarks today you would think staying in the Paris Agreement would destroy the U.S. economy. If you listen to many advocates who support the agreement, you would think you need to start building an ark, soon.

I therefore read the text of the agreement to see for myself. Doing so reinforced the view I developed when the agreement was concluded. Relative to the scope of the problem it is trying to solve, the Paris Agreement is quantitatively trivial. It is a set of weak process agreements, with many areas of ambiguous language and “flexibility” for countries to reinterpret their only loosely binding quantitative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions many years from now.

Keith Hennessey highlights the intersectionality between politics, debate, and impact in the Paris agreement. It reflects the absurdity of imputing symbolic battles to actual battles.

Symbolic, maybe, but at least it was a global recognition of the factual world around us and that we need to act. Meanwhile, you're still up there practically denying that climate change will impact our habitat in any significant way, which is why there is a battle in the first place.

Conversely, highlighting meaningless symbolism teaches others that you don't want to act, either. You'll choose to advance agreements that predicate recognizing the problem on knowing it doesn't mean you have to do anything about it.

But this shared assumption, of a first step or slippery slope, could easily be wrong. If the Paris Agreement were never to have led to a more significant next step, then a key premise of the fight is wrong. The intense political symbolism and the fierce battles waged over both President Obama’s and President Trump’s relatively small policy moves would then be unsupported by strong policy arguments.

I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. They therefore grabbed the best agreement they could, however weak, kicking the can down the road in the hope that somehow their successors might have more luck. Because I am so skeptical about the first step claim, and because I care far more about the policy impact than about the symbolism, my reaction is mild both to President Obama’s signing in 2016 and to President Trump’s withdrawal announcement today. I think neither agreeing to Paris nor withdrawing from it would have changed future global temperatures by any meaningful amount. Even before today I was skeptical that it would lead to any significant next steps, so I conclude that these symbolic battles about the Paris Agreement are almost meaningless.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 02 2017 16:36 GMT
#154747
Trump's basic shtick with this and his other decisions was that these deals are a bad deal for America and so we need better deals. He's two for three on stumbling into the right result so far though.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Godwrath
Profile Joined August 2012
Spain10126 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-02 16:46:15
June 02 2017 16:45 GMT
#154748
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".

Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step.
Artisreal
Profile Joined June 2009
Germany9235 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-02 16:46:24
June 02 2017 16:46 GMT
#154749
On June 03 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump's basic shtick with this and his other decisions was that these deals are a bad deal for America and so we need better deals. He's two for three on stumbling into the right result so far though.

Healthcare is not one of them. Are you refering to TTIP and NAFTA?
passive quaranstream fan
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 02 2017 16:47 GMT
#154750
On June 03 2017 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:
Danglers, this is really not complicated. If Trumpo had said "we believe man made climae change is a threat to society and we will fight it through policy but we disagree on the first step, that is the paris agreement. therefore, we step out", this definition would have applied. But the Republicans and Trump disagree on the problem itself, so them not joining a symbolic treaty actually is a big deal.

Read the prior argument. I'll try to restate the idea in the hopes that you realize how simple it is. "We believe man-made climate change is a threat to society. Therefore, we will enter an agreement that doesn't acknowledge the costs of making real changes to fix it. This will highlight our inability to address a real problem head-on, reinforce people who say it's more about international posturing than taking action, and provide a useful definition of the term 'virtue-signalling.' " You're shooting yourself in the foot here. It's about as complicated as spelling my name right lol.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
June 02 2017 16:48 GMT
#154751
On June 03 2017 01:30 ZeromuS wrote:
But the frustration with Trump's decisions isn't just about his actual impact on the environment.

It is about the symbolic abdication of power and the fact that his position shows that he doesn't even care symbolically about climate change.

Its a signal that the federal US government, while he is in charge, doesn't really support climate action on any level. Thats a bad message to send globally and to the market. Even if the real actual policies aren't very strong behind the treaty, it shows that the US just doesn't care.

That has real political ramifications that go beyond the actual climate accord. Thats the REAL issue.

That whole QTIIPS thing is a deflection of deeper issues.



So it's about all about feeling good about ourselves, huh? Shocking. And even if you disagree with him, you need to give Trump the credit of at least explaining why he's canning the Paris Accords. Trump laid out its shortcomings pretty clearly. This wasn't some arbitrary and capricious decision that Trump made on a whim.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 02 2017 16:49 GMT
#154752
On June 03 2017 01:46 Artisreal wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump's basic shtick with this and his other decisions was that these deals are a bad deal for America and so we need better deals. He's two for three on stumbling into the right result so far though.

Healthcare is not one of them. Are you refering to TTIP and NAFTA?

TPP and TTIP. NAFTA is a decision yet unmade and healthcare is internal.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
June 02 2017 16:51 GMT
#154753
On June 03 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 01:28 a_flayer wrote:
On June 03 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:
Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement today fit into a category I will label as QTIIPS.

QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism.

QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.

A policy change is QTIIPS if:
  • its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;
  • it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;
  • supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and
  • a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.


Advocates on either side of a QTIIPS policy change have desired end states that represent fundamentally different policy outcomes. But while the policy gap between their desired end states is measured in miles, on a QTIIPS policy, actual changes are measured in inches. The battle rages over which end state is the right one, but when policy shifts back and forth it changes direction often but moves only a tiny bit each time. Political constraints make the theoretical debate about miles-apart differences irrelevant because neither end state will ever occur, but that does not deter the theoretical war from raging during the real-world battles over a tiny actual change in direction.

If you listened to President Trump’s remarks today you would think staying in the Paris Agreement would destroy the U.S. economy. If you listen to many advocates who support the agreement, you would think you need to start building an ark, soon.

I therefore read the text of the agreement to see for myself. Doing so reinforced the view I developed when the agreement was concluded. Relative to the scope of the problem it is trying to solve, the Paris Agreement is quantitatively trivial. It is a set of weak process agreements, with many areas of ambiguous language and “flexibility” for countries to reinterpret their only loosely binding quantitative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions many years from now.

Keith Hennessey highlights the intersectionality between politics, debate, and impact in the Paris agreement. It reflects the absurdity of imputing symbolic battles to actual battles.

Symbolic, maybe, but at least it was a global recognition of the factual world around us and that we need to act. Meanwhile, you're still up there practically denying that climate change will impact our habitat in any significant way, which is why there is a battle in the first place.

Conversely, highlighting meaningless symbolism teaches others that you don't want to act, either. You'll choose to advance agreements that predicate recognizing the problem on knowing it doesn't mean you have to do anything about it.

Show nested quote +
But this shared assumption, of a first step or slippery slope, could easily be wrong. If the Paris Agreement were never to have led to a more significant next step, then a key premise of the fight is wrong. The intense political symbolism and the fierce battles waged over both President Obama’s and President Trump’s relatively small policy moves would then be unsupported by strong policy arguments.

I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. They therefore grabbed the best agreement they could, however weak, kicking the can down the road in the hope that somehow their successors might have more luck. Because I am so skeptical about the first step claim, and because I care far more about the policy impact than about the symbolism, my reaction is mild both to President Obama’s signing in 2016 and to President Trump’s withdrawal announcement today. I think neither agreeing to Paris nor withdrawing from it would have changed future global temperatures by any meaningful amount. Even before today I was skeptical that it would lead to any significant next steps, so I conclude that these symbolic battles about the Paris Agreement are almost meaningless.

It's good to hear that you would have wanted the US to agree to a climate change treaty that said every country must cut emissions by 98% in 2025. Something that would have real significant impact, and wouldn't be symbolic in nature.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
June 02 2017 16:51 GMT
#154754
On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture.

That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost.

Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here.

It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts.


Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 02 2017 16:51 GMT
#154755
On June 03 2017 01:45 Godwrath wrote:
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".

Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step.

This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 02 2017 16:54 GMT
#154756
On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture.

That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost.

Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here.

It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts.


Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off.

Question is, what is Musk's net effect communicating he is leaving a symbolic council while flying around on his private jet. I disagree with LegalLord on the Paris agreement, but agree that [Ted Cruz is] not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 02 2017 16:56 GMT
#154757
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.

The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
June 02 2017 16:57 GMT
#154758
On June 03 2017 00:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Those actual results include the fact that Republicans have historically denied that climate change had even occurred in the first place...


Once again, you're putting optics ahead of results.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 02 2017 16:58 GMT
#154759
On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture.

That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost.

Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here.

It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts.


Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off.

By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-02 17:00:06
June 02 2017 16:59 GMT
#154760
International agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them. They function by holding nations to their word, nobody wants to be a pariah within the international community because they constantly violate international agreements. The US should know the effectiveness of this because it has more or less justified every single one of their military adventures in recent years, and it is what enabled Trump to take action against Assad, because the international consensus on chemical weapons is another such agreement.
Prev 1 7736 7737 7738 7739 7740 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
14:00
Bracket Day 2 - Final
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Clem vs Krystianer
uThermal vs SKillousLIVE!
Reynor vs MaNa
Lambo vs Gerald
RotterdaM1786
ComeBackTV 1724
IndyStarCraft 577
WardiTV347
CranKy Ducklings181
Rex148
3DClanTV 68
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 1786
IndyStarCraft 577
Rex 148
BRAT_OK 76
MindelVK 23
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 50677
Horang2 6382
EffOrt 1523
Barracks 1318
Larva 982
Stork 675
BeSt 627
firebathero 528
Soulkey 267
Hyun 232
[ Show more ]
Last 223
Rush 108
Dewaltoss 81
Sharp 66
Shinee 63
Sea.KH 59
sSak 55
Free 55
Movie 55
Shine 35
sas.Sziky 33
sorry 33
zelot 20
yabsab 18
ajuk12(nOOB) 13
Terrorterran 9
Dota 2
Gorgc4311
qojqva3471
XcaliburYe459
420jenkins183
LuMiX0
Counter-Strike
sgares335
fl0m310
oskar172
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor562
Other Games
B2W.Neo2185
Beastyqt1401
Hui .349
DeMusliM226
Fuzer 173
QueenE57
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV32
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 14
• poizon28 5
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 4278
• WagamamaTV793
League of Legends
• Nemesis2611
• Jankos1301
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3h 57m
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Wardi Open
20h 57m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 19h
WardiTV European League
2 days
Online Event
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.