|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 01 2019 20:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You are the one who is posting "Creepy Uncle Joe". If you don't give a shit, then stop posting it. And wtf is "Creepy Uncle Joe" anyways? Is this kids school?
This is how you spot a Trump fan; They speak just like him, like a 3 year old. They can't criticize without silly name calling that undermines their own point.
|
On April 01 2019 22:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 22:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:19 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them? The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum. Green New Deal =/= regulating the market. Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL Please show me this nationalisation boogyman because I just read through it and I can't find it. “Nationalization” may not quite be the right term, but the GND unquestionably requires unprecedented government marshaling and redistribution of national resources, destruction of private wealth, and severe restrictions of individual liberties. This is what BerserkSword is getting at.
Nothing that we have not done before. It took a lot of governmental power to wire the country for phone service. And get the electrical grid to cover the entire country. Or building the first rail roads or the modern highway system. And when the country was making these big changes, there were lots of opportunities for citizens to make a buck or two.
|
|
|
United States41470 Posts
The frustrating thing is that we never used to have this problem. We didn’t have it with lead in petrol, or with the hole in the ozone layer. Sure the companies at the time cried about regulation, an overbearing state, and all the rest of it but when it came down to it we trusted scientists and addressed the issues.
The current climate “debate” is a product of corporate conservative capture of the media.
|
On April 01 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 22:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 01 2019 22:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:19 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them? The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum. Green New Deal =/= regulating the market. Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL Please show me this nationalisation boogyman because I just read through it and I can't find it. “Nationalization” may not quite be the right term, but the GND unquestionably requires unprecedented government marshaling and redistribution of national resources, destruction of private wealth, and severe restrictions of individual liberties. This is what BerserkSword is getting at. Nothing that we have not done before. It took a lot of governmental power to wire the country for phone service. And get the electrical grid to cover the entire country. Or building the first rail roads or the modern highway system. And when the country was making these big changes, there were lots of opportunities for citizens to make a buck or two.
Not even remotely comparable. The GND is not just a capital spending project. You are ignoring all of its attendant prohibitions and other regulations that interfere with regular private activity.
|
On April 01 2019 23:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:On April 01 2019 22:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 01 2019 22:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:19 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic.
Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them? The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum. Green New Deal =/= regulating the market. Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL Please show me this nationalisation boogyman because I just read through it and I can't find it. “Nationalization” may not quite be the right term, but the GND unquestionably requires unprecedented government marshaling and redistribution of national resources, destruction of private wealth, and severe restrictions of individual liberties. This is what BerserkSword is getting at. Nothing that we have not done before. It took a lot of governmental power to wire the country for phone service. And get the electrical grid to cover the entire country. Or building the first rail roads or the modern highway system. And when the country was making these big changes, there were lots of opportunities for citizens to make a buck or two. Not even remotely comparable. The GND is not just a capital spending project. You are ignoring all of its attendant prohibitions and other regulations that interfere with regular private activity.
Am I? Or I'm I skeptical of the regulation will hurt private(aka small business owners and their employees) boogie man used scare people off of these sorts of plans.
The concept of the green new deal is to create an infrastructure framework that would allow green, renewable tech replace or integrate with current infrastructure. And to throw the government’s weight beyond building a high speed rail system. It is not prescriptive and sets lofty goals that are very much shooting the moon. Regulations might restrict some private industry, which is true. But private industry will also move in the direction that the government is headed, just like it has in the past. After we build the highways, the rail shipping industry didn’t take a hit because of regulations against trains. Just like coal isn’t dying because of regulations, no matter what the coal industry tells us.
|
|
|
Norway28478 Posts
There are some coherent ways of articulating opposition to emissions-cutting style of combating climate change. Mainly, you can say, and be honest, 'I don't care about people that aren't myself'. If that's the case, there's no real counter argument, I can insult you over it, but it's not gonna matter, because as a sociopath, you won't factor in my approval or disapproval anyway. This doesn't actually work for any person who has or plans to have children, but I think there's probably significant overlap between climate change denialism and the incel community anyway. ( ;-) )
Or you can say something like 'cutting emissions won't work, because it requires too inconveniencing effort from too many people for it to plausibly work out. The only chance we really have is to gamble on technology somehow saving us'. This attitude can be compared to being part of a group of people collectively thrown out of an airplane, and then hoping that some genius is gonna invent a parachute, but it's still fairly reasonable from the point of view that 'we're most likely already fucked anyway. We had a window between 1979 and 1990, we didn't take it, now it's probably too late. Might as well travel somewhere nice and eat steak while shit goes to hell'.
Or you can die-hard argue for use of nuclear power. There are issues with that, in that you create a different problem for future generations to solve, but even then, someone like me, is gonna have a very hard time arguing against the need for more nuclear as part of the solution. Or you can suggest solutions involving 'more nuclear, more growing of forests, spend money on co2-absorption technology, development of high speed train infrastructure so people can keep driving cars, but hopefully they use less planes and eat a bit less meat'. And then it's like.. fine. I might not really agree with you, but at least you didn't invent a parallel universe where your opinions make sense.
But instead of any of these, people tend to say some version of 'we don't even know what degree humans contribute (if any)', 'we don't know whether the effects will be felt until a 1000 years from now', or 'it's a hoax perpetuated by the chinese to hurt american economy'. All of these opinions are either completely dishonest or amazingly ignorant. We know that human behavior is the main factor in explaining the climate change witnessed over the past 50 years. We know that continued current-day emissions is going to have absolutely fucking disastrous effects over the next 100 years. The only part of uncertainty here is that some people are hoping that emissions will become reduced and they factor that into their projections - and even then, shit looks truly horrible in large parts of the world. (Leading to a future political solution of 'let 9+ digit number of people die or accept vastly increased immigration' - but of course, there's also an almost perfect overlap between people who don't believe in climate change and in people who don't want more immigration from third world countries, so whatever. (note this only goes one way) )
|
In other equally important news, a White House staffer is informing congress of least 25 individuals were denied security clearance, but there then granted it by the White House. Hypocrisy aside, this shit is dangerous and puts people who provide our country with intelligence with the assurances that we won’t put them at risk. The grift is strong in the White House and the damage being done now will be felt for a decade or longer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/trump-security-clearances.html
A whistle-blower working inside the White House has told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 individuals whose applications had been denied by career employees, the committee’s Democratic staff said Monday.
The whistle-blower, Tricia Newbold, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a private interview last month that the 25 individuals included two current senior White House officials, in addition to contractors and other employees working for the office of the president, the staff said in a memo it released publicly.
The memo does not identify any of 25 individuals referenced by Ms. Newbold. The New York Times reported in February that President Trump had personally ordered his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, to grant a clearance last year to Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser. Mr. Kelly had recorded Mr. Trump’s direction to him in a memo, according to several people familiar with its contents. Mr. Trump had denied playing a role in an interview with The Times in the Oval Office a month earlier. Mr. Kelly left the White House at the end of last year.
Ms. Newbold told the committee’s staff members that the clearance applications had been denied for a variety of reasons, including “foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct,” the memo said. The denials by the career employees were overturned, she said, by more-senior officials who did not follow the procedures designed to mitigate security risks.
|
On April 02 2019 00:36 Plansix wrote:In other equally important news, a White House staffer is informing congress of least 25 individuals were denied security clearance, but there then granted it by the White House. Hypocrisy aside, this shit is dangerous and puts people who provide our country with intelligence with the assurances that we won’t put them at risk. The grift is strong in the White House and the damage being done now will be felt for a decade or longer. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/trump-security-clearances.htmlShow nested quote +A whistle-blower working inside the White House has told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 individuals whose applications had been denied by career employees, the committee’s Democratic staff said Monday.
The whistle-blower, Tricia Newbold, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a private interview last month that the 25 individuals included two current senior White House officials, in addition to contractors and other employees working for the office of the president, the staff said in a memo it released publicly.
The memo does not identify any of 25 individuals referenced by Ms. Newbold. The New York Times reported in February that President Trump had personally ordered his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, to grant a clearance last year to Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser. Mr. Kelly had recorded Mr. Trump’s direction to him in a memo, according to several people familiar with its contents. Mr. Trump had denied playing a role in an interview with The Times in the Oval Office a month earlier. Mr. Kelly left the White House at the end of last year.
Ms. Newbold told the committee’s staff members that the clearance applications had been denied for a variety of reasons, including “foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct,” the memo said. The denials by the career employees were overturned, she said, by more-senior officials who did not follow the procedures designed to mitigate security risks.
The silence on the right shows that they are assuming these people were denied for silly reasons and that fundamentally, bad people would not be considered for these positions, so it must make sense to just give them access. In the case of Clinton, since they were already convinced she was dirty, it was a foregone conclusion that anything weird involving security is a really bad thing. But so long as it is just "good people bypassing silly procedures", they won't care, because they have a core trust in their "team".
|
On April 02 2019 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are some coherent ways of articulating opposition to emissions-cutting style of combating climate change. Mainly, you can say, and be honest, 'I don't care about people that aren't myself'. If that's the case, there's no real counter argument, I can insult you over it, but it's not gonna matter, because as a sociopath, you won't factor in my approval or disapproval anyway. This doesn't actually work for any person who has or plans to have children, but I think there's probably significant overlap between climate change denialism and the incel community anyway. ( ;-) )
My dad said those words to me directly. And when I followed up with "So you don't care what happens to your children and grandchildren?" He said "I'll be dead anyways".
It's not that he doesn't care about us, he has shown love and care for all of us repeatedly. He just ran out of arguments in the discussion and defaulted to anything that didn't involve him being wrong. People would rather ruin their children's lives than be wrong.
|
On April 01 2019 23:22 KwarK wrote:
The frustrating thing is that we never used to have this problem. We didn’t have it with lead in petrol, or with the hole in the ozone layer. Sure the companies at the time cried about regulation, an overbearing state, and all the rest of it but when it came down to it we trusted scientists and addressed the issues.
The current climate “debate” is a product of corporate conservative capture of the media.
The free market put all those local papers and diverse news sources out of business. Or consolidated them under one national brand, making sure that we get that national, both sides coverage that the free market demands. And now the market demands that we all get our news from Facebook and Google, because we live in the future and the free market is on the internet. Facebook can't get you local news yet, but I'm sure they will think up a system to crowd source the local reporting. Not the fact checking, though. They don't want to be editors.
|
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon.
|
On April 02 2019 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon.
More like the obsession over it is simply a European thing
most of the biggest/most populous countries in the world dont give a damn, as evidenced by their carbon emissions and policies
|
On April 02 2019 02:22 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2019 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon. More like the obsession over it is simply a European thing most of the biggest/most populous countries in the world dont give a damn, as evidenced by their carbon emissions and policies
Okay, so you basically just put yourself into this group of people who oppose taking action to combat climate change:
There are some coherent ways of articulating opposition to emissions-cutting style of combating climate change. Mainly, you can say, and be honest, 'I don't care about people that aren't myself'. If that's the case, there's no real counter argument, I can insult you over it, but it's not gonna matter, because as a sociopath, you won't factor in my approval or disapproval anyway. This doesn't actually work for any person who has or plans to have children, but I think there's probably significant overlap between climate change denialism and the incel community anyway. ( ;-) )
Thanks to drone for laying the options out so clearly  I'm also happy to ignore you on the topic, because as long as you are happy, the world can go to hell, right?
|
On April 02 2019 02:22 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2019 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon. More like the obsession over it is simply a European thing most of the biggest/most populous countries in the world dont give a damn, as evidenced by their carbon emissions and policies
It is an American thing too, but we have a bunch of corporate interests that a super invested in making sure the US never changes. They are obsessed with making sure no one upsets the status quo.
|
On April 02 2019 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are some coherent ways of articulating opposition to emissions-cutting style of combating climate change. Mainly, you can say, and be honest, 'I don't care about people that aren't myself'. If that's the case, there's no real counter argument, I can insult you over it, but it's not gonna matter, because as a sociopath, you won't factor in my approval or disapproval anyway. This doesn't actually work for any person who has or plans to have children, but I think there's probably significant overlap between climate change denialism and the incel community anyway. ( ;-) )
Oh, now don't be coy. You can intelligently engage with other articulated arguments. How about "The largest carbon dioxide polluters won't give a damn about the US "leadership" on climate change, and look out for their own power and economic self interest, and America ought to do likewise."
You will rob yourself of laughs at how funny it is to talk about arguing with sociopaths if you seriously consider counterarguments. I grant you that. You'll also miss some chortles on the connection between incels and "denialism." It's not purely incidental that the two most brain-dead arguments against a nation acting in it's own national self-interest is "That amounts to not caring about other people" and "Other nations are truly setting aside their own self-interest for the global good and you're hurting that."
Or you can say something like 'cutting emissions won't work, because it requires too inconveniencing effort from too many people for it to plausibly work out. The only chance we really have is to gamble on technology somehow saving us'. This attitude can be compared to being part of a group of people collectively thrown out of an airplane, and then hoping that some genius is gonna invent a parachute, but it's still fairly reasonable from the point of view that 'we're most likely already fucked anyway. We had a window between 1979 and 1990, we didn't take it, now it's probably too late. Might as well travel somewhere nice and eat steak while shit goes to hell'.
I notice your word "inconveniencing." You aren't willing to fairly approach tradeoffs with the resources we might spend in one area instead of another. It's useful to you to stake out a emotional position, that of "My opponents know what is the right thing to do, but it's awfully too inconvenient for them. They are moral miscreants." Secondly, you move onto another rhetorical device. You choose to represent investment in technological development as a "gamble," one that the opposing side knows is a gamble in the beginning. Not awfully productive, but good to play for laughs.
Now, an honest skeptic of the "12 years to save the planet" crowd might see how you're arguing and check your game. Oh, Liquid`Drone is playing it like this, is he? Alright, you're gambling on killing people in grinding poverty to try to stem global catastrophe. Their jobs and local industry is putting food on the table, but it's necessary to cripple these global business operations through regulation in order that some other, richer people might be saved. Your sacrifice will be remembered by the survivors. Now, I'm off to my sensible, sustainable dinner while remaining oblivious to how much of the world relies on growth industry and current means of power generation.
Now, if you've given up persuading others, and moved on to the stage where you force the dullards to comply, you are one hundred percent logically consistent. Good news. It's fine to teach your opposing side that they're only good for comic relief. Their arguments will only be referred to as not caring, or not coping with inconvenience, or taking a gamble when none is necessary. It's a wholly coherent way to treat national politics. People unlike you are already recalcitrant, so what's the danger in making them more so? Self fulfilling prophesies are great because they come true.
Or you can die-hard argue for use of nuclear power. There are issues with that, in that you create a different problem for future generations to solve, but even then, someone like me, is gonna have a very hard time arguing against the need for more nuclear as part of the solution. Or you can suggest solutions involving 'more nuclear, more growing of forests, spend money on co2-absorption technology, development of high speed train infrastructure so people can keep driving cars, but hopefully they use less planes and eat a bit less meat'. And then it's like.. fine. I might not really agree with you, but at least you didn't invent a parallel universe where your opinions make sense.
If I were to adopt your arguing style for a second, I'd say your argument is coherent from the stance that climate change is comparable in severity to ordinary problems like the storage of nuclear waste and algal blooms. After all, it makes sense talking about "a different problem for future generations to solve," because saving the climate from catastrophe is something to be weighed alongside with things many centuries away. It also makes sense to pay homage to "part of the solution," to not be laughed out instantly by someone that puts numbers behind the power needs of the planet.
With the unfortunate possibility of treating a humor post about sociopaths and incels seriously, the big risk you take is characterizing the opposing side as crazy ignorant, without addressing the scale of impact from serious proposals on your side beyond "inconvenience." I think it is entirely proper to ridicule the ridiculous until those ostensibly worried about the climate start talking sense. Yes, I'm pulling a "people tend to say some version of" on your side. I don't see consideration of how much fracking reduced our energy carbon footprint or the reforestation currently ongoing + Show Spoiler +Just two weeks ago, I had another climate nut tell me America was being rapidly deforested by logging and rising temperatures from climate change.
But instead of any of these, people tend to say some version of 'we don't even know what degree humans contribute (if any)', 'we don't know whether the effects will be felt until a 1000 years from now', or 'it's a hoax perpetuated by the chinese to hurt american economy'. All of these opinions are either completely dishonest or amazingly ignorant. We know that human behavior is the main factor in explaining the climate change witnessed over the past 50 years. We know that continued current-day emissions is going to have absolutely fucking disastrous effects over the next 100 years. The only part of uncertainty here is that some people are hoping that emissions will become reduced and they factor that into their projections - and even then, shit looks truly horrible in large parts of the world. (Leading to a future political solution of 'let 9+ digit number of people die or accept vastly increased immigration' - but of course, there's also an almost perfect overlap between people who don't believe in climate change and in people who don't want more immigration from third world countries, so whatever. (note this only goes one way) )
I think people like you tend to highlight whatever rhetoric most serves to enhance your argument that the people arguing with you are crazy and not to be taken seriously. No, I don't think you have the remotest idea of the dishonesty or ignorance from people whom you oppose. You can't even admit your own. That's one of the reasons I throw it right back on you.
I'm perfectly happy to remain in opposition to damaging policies within the US that waste money and accomplish very little. It's a pretty easy thing to do considering the ridiculous tenor of the people proposing these things. For example, you give zero knowledge or acknowledgement of the role that technology has historically played in reducing carbon emissions. I see plenty of focus on calling it a gamble and dismissing it. I see plenty of focus from others on your general side for destroying American industry first, in hopes that the act of self-harm for the greater good will inspire the globe. Now, what kind of idea is one supposed to take if every victory is immediately trodden over, and the only focus is how much more you'll have to pay and how nothing matters compared to the size of it all? Did you even see intellectual engagement with xDaunt's posts here and here?
Hell, when I read people like you, I seriously wonder if you intend to promote backlash to your ideas by insulting the people that don't already agree with you. The one way to make it look like some kind of underhanded plot is to use climate change as just a vehicle to criticize capitalism and disparage the rich. I see very little engagement on the subject of blending normal left wing policy goals, like stiff regulation of unpopular industry and a vast taxation and redistribution apparatus, into plans to address climate change (The old "greens are the new reds argument.)
To wrap up, let me give my thoughts on the genre of your writing. Having smeared your opposition as vocally tending towards the dishonest and ignorant, you wish them to listen to your (very lacking as I point out) categories of acceptable and coherent articulation of opposition. That is rather counterproductive for you, but a happy coincidence for me. I need voting allies to oppose the worst ideas pretending to address climate change, so I'll welcome all the disgruntled people into my tent to slow down the radical pace. Who are you going to trust, someone that will discuss the internal contradictions of climate policy, or someone that thinks your preference for steak is killing the planet?
I think we have time to let cooler heads prevail. I don't think it will happen under this generation of climate zealots, but I sure hope I'm wrong.
|
In other news, Trump's war on the poor continues with the new food stamp proposal. It proposed that "able bodied" adults without child must work 20 hours a week or lose food stamp benefits. The reasoning: Unemployment is low and people should be able to find a job. You know, real carefully thought out reasoning behind policy.
Mind you, this is already a law, but may states waive this because of the reality the basic idea that feeding people is better than saving a couple bucks for the federal goverment. Trump wants to make that waiver hard to get, because why let the states decide what is best for them and their citizens when Trump's under informed Agriculture Secretary, Sonny Perdue, can do it for the states?
This shit is embarrassing. We have massive problems in this country that need attention and these clowns are focusing on making the poorest people in this country dance food stamps.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/707681965/more-than-750-000-could-lose-food-stamps-under-trump-administration-proposal
Royal says he gets $185 a month in SNAP benefits, but he worries he'll lose them under the proposed rules because he can't find work. He has a severely injured leg and a criminal record, which limit his options.
"But still I have to eat. I have to still try and find employment but I have those barriers against me," Royal says.
Others here are struggling with other barriers, such as homelessness, mental illness and drug addiction. Some already work, but not enough to meet the 20-hour-a-week threshold. One man says he has a janitorial job at the Baltimore Orioles' stadium, but only when the baseball team is in town. In the winter, he relies on food stamps.
|
On April 02 2019 02:22 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2019 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon. More like the obsession over it is simply a European thing most of the biggest/most populous countries in the world dont give a damn, as evidenced by their carbon emissions and policies
That doesn't even make any sense. There simply is no climate change "debate" except in USA.
|
On April 02 2019 03:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2019 02:22 BerserkSword wrote:On April 02 2019 02:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can say all that but right now climate change "debate" is simply an American phenomenon. More like the obsession over it is simply a European thing most of the biggest/most populous countries in the world dont give a damn, as evidenced by their carbon emissions and policies That doesn't even make any sense. There simply is no climate change "debate" except in USA.
India and China fully acknowledge it. But clearly he is just talking about large countries, not China and India.
You guys keep feeding it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
