|
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. |
On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi".
You arn't saying that you don't like how someone shifts the conversation you're drawing conclusions on the why he's shifting and presenting that as the reason you think he's shifting the conversation. There isn't room for someone to see a question in your conclusions all there is to see is acusations and insinuations.
|
On September 23 2017 15:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi". You arn't saying that you don't like how someone shifts the conversation you're drawing conclusions on the why he's shifting and presenting that as the reason you think he's shifting the conversation. There isn't room for someone to see a question in your conclusions all there is to see is acusations and insinuations.
I don't think that this is a fair assessment of NewSunshine's argument.
|
On September 23 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that. Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility.
If you happen to answer in a roundabout way or in response to another topic, then I can adjust my opinion. If you never reply, then I assume you're hiding something. There's flexibility there if you allow for it. I've responded to most everyone who has ever responded or questioned something I've stated, for the simple fact I want to make clear where I stand on topics. And if I am wrong, I'll admit it. Or I'll move along after giving a final statement. Why can't more people do that?
Respond in some shape or form. Even if it's not the current topic. Now, Danglars has come out, again, and said he is against all the nazi stuff. I commend him for it. I don't commend him for being evasive when the actual discussion was going on, but at least he said it eventually. It helps to just be clear from the start and avoid any misunderstandings.
|
On September 23 2017 15:20 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:19 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi". You arn't saying that you don't like how someone shifts the conversation you're drawing conclusions on the why he's shifting and presenting that as the reason you think he's shifting the conversation. There isn't room for someone to see a question in your conclusions all there is to see is acusations and insinuations. I don't think that this is a fair assessment of NewSunshine's argument.
You don't see a series of assumptions and conclusions presented as questions? What would you say is a fair assessment of his argument?
|
On September 23 2017 15:13 Danglars wrote:
Please know that cloaking the "I'm not saying you're a Nazi, but I'm saying the totality of your posting sometimes makes me think you don't actually condemn them" doesn't actually help your case. It just means you deal in weaseling insinuations and play fast and loose with denigrating language. I'm not saying I'm going to end my posting with this one, but I will say the gestalt of your posting shows a remarkable indifference to actual consideration of stigmatizing terms you hold over others.
I'm not talking about myself. Calling someone a white supremacist or a nazi is not something I take lightly. But I can't speak for others in this thread, hence my language. I wouldn't say that about you, and I haven't, but I can see why someone else might, even if I disagree. Apologies if that was not sufficiently clear.
|
On September 23 2017 15:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that. Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility. If you happen to answer in a roundabout way or in response to another topic, then I can adjust my opinion. If you never reply, then I assume you're hiding something. There's flexibility there if you allow for it. I've responded to most everyone who has ever responded or questioned something I've stated, for the simple fact I want to make clear where I stand on topics. And if I am wrong, I'll admit it. Or I'll move along after giving a final statement. Why can't more people do that? Respond in some shape or form. Even if it's not the current topic. Now, Danglars has come out, again, and said he is against all the nazi stuff. I commend him for it. I don't commend him for being evasive when the actual discussion was going on, but at least he said it eventually. It helps to just be clear from the start and avoid any misunderstandings.
You're mistaking flexibility with rigidness. You say that you will only a just your opinion based on a response and if you don't get what you are looking for you won't be flexible you will just continue with what you assumed and go forward. Being flexible would include giving the benift of the doubt and questioning I'd they simply don't have the time or brain speed to keep up with everyone.
It helps to be flexible from the start and not use rigid assumptions about people until they explicitly do what you need to change your opinion.
|
On September 23 2017 09:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 23 2017 00:50 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 23 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:07 Yurie wrote:On September 23 2017 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2017 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2017 23:51 Velr wrote:
[quote]
Why would exactly would europeans be sympathetic towards this? The Europeans who frequent this thread, specifically. That's an answer to who, not why. And second the question. I would love to hear why. Dunno. The hard-on for big cities and catastrophic demographics among our specific crop of Europeans is a head-scratcher to me. I suspect 70%+ of y'all live in megacities and think everyone should (megacity worship by its inhabitants is a worldwide phenomenon). But I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#Largest_citiesThe US has much more of them than the EU does, at least large ones. So going to them for votes would seem more reasonable in the US than here. The same divide between rural and big city life happens everywhere. Different problems, more people in cities, easier to tackle their problems in many cases due to higher tax base connected to it and so on. I would assume a maximum of 2/10 of European posters on this site live in megacities. Personally I live in a city with below 100k population. That assumes a fairly representative sample of Europeans in our midst, which is very likely not the case. I suppose I use "megacity" too loosely if you want to define it as >10m. Throw in some European capitals and second/third largest cities. Why is it very likely not the case? Like, is Oslo a megacity in your view? Birmingham? Cologne? Dunno, never been to those. It's less a question of how big it is than a mentality. LA, SF, NY, Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Paris, London, Berlin, all have that mentality. Mid-size cities such as Denver and Philadelphia are borderline. Cities like Phoenix and Houston are not despite being significantly larger than previously mentioned cities. And I mention it because a lot of folk here have the same mentality I see among those who are obsessed with staying in "the center of culture and innovation" and for example would never dream of moving to Texas or Siberia or some random ass European country. I am aware I'm playing fast and loose with definitions here. It might be that everything tends to be much closer in Europe than in the US, it might be a more leftward bend, it might be the language barrier (I've noticed that most conservatives come from English-native countries on this board), and it might be any number of things that I have not considered. But it's quite clear that among the Europeans who post on this board, people tend not to understand what people hate so strongly about Hillary. And that manner is very akin to the precise lack of understanding I see from people from NY/LA/SF and the like. If you think 70% of the western european posters here live in paris, london or berlin or any comparable city then you are extremely mistaken.. Maybe so. Still, many of you have the same mentality as those in the large cities on a broad range of issues (though obviously some individuals more than others). Of course "Europe" is anything but a unified cultural entity even if some people would wish it were so saying "European" is already an awkward term. And even before that I'm generalizing quite crudely. Nevertheless, my core statement was really this: Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:
In her book, Hillary talked a bit about the way she went to small towns. She went in, generally to unfriendly crowds, barely did anything, and went away with a mindset of "they don't understand how good I am for them." That's a message that I suspect our European folk are particularly sympathetic towards but that won't, and shouldn't, get you elected. And everything else was really off-hand speculation.
That is not a message, it's a statement. And elaborating it definitely should get you elected because that's the core of a well run campaign. Well, not saying exactly what you wrote, but translating the message of how and why you are planning to do good things for your electorate is kinda key of you want to convince someone.
Or am I missing the point of the bolded statement.
|
On September 23 2017 15:22 Sermokala wrote:
...
You don't see a series of assumptions and conclusions presented as questions? What would you say is a fair assessment of his argument?
I don't think this was too far off:
On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:...
Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi".
Pretty much any question which boils down to "did you just say something I disagree with or did I misinterpret?" is fairly easy to mistake for "assumptions and conclusions presented as questions". Which is not to say that the latter doesn't happen, only that the two do inherently appear quite similar.
I don't see a particularly good reason to believe that NewSunshine intended the second as opposed to the first, especially given the otherwise conciliatory nature of this conversation.
|
On September 23 2017 15:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that. Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility. If you happen to answer in a roundabout way or in response to another topic, then I can adjust my opinion. If you never reply, then I assume you're hiding something. There's flexibility there if you allow for it. I've responded to most everyone who has ever responded or questioned something I've stated, for the simple fact I want to make clear where I stand on topics. And if I am wrong, I'll admit it. Or I'll move along after giving a final statement. Why can't more people do that? Respond in some shape or form. Even if it's not the current topic. Now, Danglars has come out, again, and said he is against all the nazi stuff. I commend him for it. I don't commend him for being evasive when the actual discussion was going on, but at least he said it eventually. It helps to just be clear from the start and avoid any misunderstandings. You're mistaking flexibility with rigidness. You say that you will only a just your opinion based on a response and if you don't get what you are looking for you won't be flexible you will just continue with what you assumed and go forward. Being flexible would include giving the benift of the doubt and questioning I'd they simply don't have the time or brain speed to keep up with everyone. It helps to be flexible from the start and not use rigid assumptions about people until they explicitly do what you need to change your opinion.
And if they are flat refusing to give an anwer, what would you do then? You can have your naivete. I've known too many people and have given too many the benefit of the doubt to know that if they don't answer either right away or within a reasonable time frame, they won't answer. So the onus does not fall upon me to hope/wish/believe/think that you are too busy to respond, but on you. If it's just one person, then sure, take your time or ignore them. But there are more people watching and waiting. As the saying goes, someone is always watching. Your actions or lack thereof speaks in place of your actual voice.
|
On September 23 2017 15:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:27 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play.
[quote]
It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that. Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility. If you happen to answer in a roundabout way or in response to another topic, then I can adjust my opinion. If you never reply, then I assume you're hiding something. There's flexibility there if you allow for it. I've responded to most everyone who has ever responded or questioned something I've stated, for the simple fact I want to make clear where I stand on topics. And if I am wrong, I'll admit it. Or I'll move along after giving a final statement. Why can't more people do that? Respond in some shape or form. Even if it's not the current topic. Now, Danglars has come out, again, and said he is against all the nazi stuff. I commend him for it. I don't commend him for being evasive when the actual discussion was going on, but at least he said it eventually. It helps to just be clear from the start and avoid any misunderstandings. You're mistaking flexibility with rigidness. You say that you will only a just your opinion based on a response and if you don't get what you are looking for you won't be flexible you will just continue with what you assumed and go forward. Being flexible would include giving the benift of the doubt and questioning I'd they simply don't have the time or brain speed to keep up with everyone. It helps to be flexible from the start and not use rigid assumptions about people until they explicitly do what you need to change your opinion. And if they are flat refusing to give an anwer, what would you do then? You can have your naivete. I've known too many people and have given too many the benefit of the doubt to know that if they don't answer either right away or within a reasonable time frame, they won't answer. So the onus does not fall upon me to hope/wish/believe/think that you are too busy to respond, but on you. If it's just one person, then sure, take your time or ignore them. But there are more people watching and waiting. As the saying goes, someone is always watching. Your actions or lack thereof speaks in place of your actual voice.
You wonder why people refuse to acept the premise that what they said is sympathetic to nazies or white supremacy? That they in polite company don't get the benift of the doubt that they arn't a nazi or a white supremacist? This is an Internet forum, sometimes people just don't have the opertunity to or honestly forget to respond to you. This isn't a licence to assume the worst and present yourself as the moral high ground making unbiased acusations that people need to respond to or they get the dreaded label you want to put on them.
|
On September 23 2017 15:32 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:22 Sermokala wrote:
...
You don't see a series of assumptions and conclusions presented as questions? What would you say is a fair assessment of his argument? I don't think this was too far off: Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:...
Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi". Pretty much any question which boils down to "did you just say something I disagree with or did I misinterpret?" is fairly easy to mistake for "assumptions and conclusions presented as questions". Which is not to say that the latter doesn't happen, only that the two do inherently appear quite similar. I don't see a particularly good reason to believe that NewSunshine intended the second as opposed to the first, especially given the otherwise conciliatory nature of this conversation.
I don't think it's intentional in sunshines case given the context as you say but I am trying to explain why it is taken as such regardless of intent.
|
On September 23 2017 15:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:32 Aquanim wrote:On September 23 2017 15:22 Sermokala wrote:
...
You don't see a series of assumptions and conclusions presented as questions? What would you say is a fair assessment of his argument? I don't think this was too far off: On September 23 2017 15:13 NewSunshine wrote:...
Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi". Pretty much any question which boils down to "did you just say something I disagree with or did I misinterpret?" is fairly easy to mistake for "assumptions and conclusions presented as questions". Which is not to say that the latter doesn't happen, only that the two do inherently appear quite similar. I don't see a particularly good reason to believe that NewSunshine intended the second as opposed to the first, especially given the otherwise conciliatory nature of this conversation. I don't think it's intentional in sunshines case given the context as you say but I am trying to explain why it is taken as such regardless of intent.
But there's a reason I would be asking the question, I'm trying to avoid making that assumption about somebody. I didn't intend for it to come across the way it clearly has to you, and I apologize, but I would like my attempts to clarify to be taken for what they are. I understand tone doesn't translate well over simple text, and so maybe someone takes something I say in an unintended direction.
|
On September 23 2017 15:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:27 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer.
If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that. Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility. If you happen to answer in a roundabout way or in response to another topic, then I can adjust my opinion. If you never reply, then I assume you're hiding something. There's flexibility there if you allow for it. I've responded to most everyone who has ever responded or questioned something I've stated, for the simple fact I want to make clear where I stand on topics. And if I am wrong, I'll admit it. Or I'll move along after giving a final statement. Why can't more people do that? Respond in some shape or form. Even if it's not the current topic. Now, Danglars has come out, again, and said he is against all the nazi stuff. I commend him for it. I don't commend him for being evasive when the actual discussion was going on, but at least he said it eventually. It helps to just be clear from the start and avoid any misunderstandings. You're mistaking flexibility with rigidness. You say that you will only a just your opinion based on a response and if you don't get what you are looking for you won't be flexible you will just continue with what you assumed and go forward. Being flexible would include giving the benift of the doubt and questioning I'd they simply don't have the time or brain speed to keep up with everyone. It helps to be flexible from the start and not use rigid assumptions about people until they explicitly do what you need to change your opinion. And if they are flat refusing to give an anwer, what would you do then? You can have your naivete. I've known too many people and have given too many the benefit of the doubt to know that if they don't answer either right away or within a reasonable time frame, they won't answer. So the onus does not fall upon me to hope/wish/believe/think that you are too busy to respond, but on you. If it's just one person, then sure, take your time or ignore them. But there are more people watching and waiting. As the saying goes, someone is always watching. Your actions or lack thereof speaks in place of your actual voice. You wonder why people refuse to acept the premise that what they said is sympathetic to nazies or white supremacy? That they in polite company don't get the benift of the doubt that they arn't a nazi or a white supremacist? This is an Internet forum, sometimes people just don't have the opertunity to or honestly forget to respond to you. This isn't a licence to assume the worst and present yourself as the moral high ground making unbiased acusations that people need to respond to or they get the dreaded label you want to put on them.
But we've seen it repeated that they do have the time to respond. They just choose not to. Maybe it's because they don't think it's important to respond to. Or maybe they don't want to engage said person. That's fine. But like I said, there are others who would like an answer and by not giving one, to more than one person, you don't look particularly good and you are labeled. And in polite company, they would more than likely go through great pains to not offend.
I've moved past the nazi or white supremacist thing and am now talking in generalities about various topics, fwiw.
|
On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams.
I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works.
The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there.
What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right?
You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet.
Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same.
I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity. 
|
On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity.
To your last point, in some states/counties/cities, you can be fined for collecting water when it rains.
|
On September 23 2017 15:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity. To your last point, in some states/counties/cities, you can be fined for collecting water when it rains.
What is the justification of the ban in said regions? Is it a water quality concern issue? That's possibly the only valid reason I can think of if your area has pollution issues.
Considering how Americans like to talk about government overreach, it seems pretty excessive for little reason. Its not like a ban on, say, smoking in buildings where it benefits the overall public. Reuse of stormwater is a pretty good idea in regions with limited rainfall to help alleviate stress on local water sources like dams and reservoirs.
Australia encourages the use of stormwater tanks and they're smart enough to only use said water for non-drinking needs like watering the garden or washing the car. Its not even a left wing/right wing thing, its just smart use of a possibly scarce resource.
|
On September 23 2017 15:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity. To your last point, in some states/counties/cities, you can be fined for collecting water when it rains.
haha, I know such regulations. In a county near Berlin you cannot collect rainwater and use it for flushing the toilet.
Reason is, as far as I can remember, that the wastewater fee is calculated by the amount of fresh water you use. So bypassing the fresh water meter would allow you to get wastewater treatment for the collected rainwater you afterwards used for free.
technicalities that did not forsee the use of rainwater. ~~
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity.
Supporting projects like solar FREAKING roadways is not sheer necessity, it's money laundering schemes masquerading as solutions for the future for legislators and donors who don't know any better. And there's definitely a difference between an industry that requires startup capital and some market incentives and a fundamentally unviable idea that is mostly used for the tech-hype equivalent of money laundering. Your willingness to dismiss the cons and the scam artists as "yeah some people just milk the cow but whatever" is kind of laughable in the face of a rather widespread abuse of incentives that comes from legislators that want to appear to be hip and modern but don't know the first thing about the science behind any of those projects.
And if we're talking externalization of costs by pollution, there's plenty of externalization of costs on the part of EVs as well; if an EV makes 80% of the emissions but it's all emitted by the utility company then is it really zero-emissions? No, but they get zero-emission incentives anyways.
What would it take for me to take the bus? Perhaps not living 50km from work and a 40 minute walking distance from my bus station. But there ain't all that many cars here so it's sort of small fry in the grand scheme of things. Back when I lived in an actual city center and there was a bus stop just a few minutes from my residence I would absolutely ride the bus or the trains (living in an urban environment is fucking terrible, but that's besides the point). Sufficient traffic makes the train lane much more serviceable, as long as the public transport infrastructure is good. And it's cities like Los Angeles where a lot of the EV craze develops anyways (largely due to a huge congestion problem) so it's a good place to start with public transport as well (and to be fair LA has made leaps and bounds over the past decade in that regard as well).
"We need to encourage innovation" is the same deal as "we need to stop climate change." Yes, it's true, and no one disagrees. The problem is if you ignore the realities that the facts don't support that every idiot that promises big ideas will be the future, or if you justify every foreseeable money laundering scheme's financial failure as "you got to break a few eggs" then you're frankly just wasting valuable resources and you might as well have just invested into that Chinese bus that you could drive under. Because that's about as viable as some of the crap that gets funding.
|
I wanted to clarify I haven't called Danglars a white supremacist, but I have identified that his posts have a clear pattern of embracing white supremacy (generic American white supremacy, not KKK/Nazi white supremacy for those who get confused).
As for the question, my question was whether he had ever done anything he thought was racist/tinted with white supremacy? As far as I can tell he never stopped complaining about his persecution long enough to answer. It's a simple question and shouldn't be hard to answer but instead he just responds with another asinine question (after several pages) saying it's like asking him that. Then when I answer, he just pouts and waits till the next time he's going to climb up on his cross.
|
To be fair there was also this question
On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'll ask again. Given the choice between BLM or Nazis getting what they want, which would you prefer?
which bears some resemblance to "are you a Nazi", particularly in terms of likely reactions to any given answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
