|
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 |
United States43967 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 04:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up. No one is trying to shut anyone up. Where did you get that from anything we've said in this thread? At most, we're asking what have they done to mitigate their own personal contributions to climate change. If all they're screaming is for everyone else to change but they haven't then it is hypocritical to expect global change on something this immense when you're benefiting from it. This reminds me of the irony of Greta Thunberg being named Time mag's Person of the Year. It’s not individuals who are fucking this up, it’s structural. Carbon isn’t priced into the price of goods, while wages are based on living costs that also don’t include the carbon. The vast majority of carbon comes from a handful of activities, the gunshot wound. It’s the gunshot that’s the issue, demanding individuals change their salt intake isn’t going to make any difference to the outcome, it exists only as a purity test. Individuals aren’t responsible for climate change. The "gunshot wound" is already too large to operate on. Best we can do is try to prolong the life of the "patient". The carbon cannot be sequestered back into the ground. The seas cannot handle it. The polar ice caps are fucking toast according to scientists (but may have a chance if we start to get shit fixed now). Individuals are the problem because, like it or not, we as humans consume. And we continue to do so. And in order to feed the population, this is what the outcome will always, inevitably be. It's a Thanos snap problem. You can solve the problem by destroying everything and giving the survivors a chance to make better decisions for the future (a culling). Or you can do your damn best to work with everyone, every single person, and make the changes that saves as many as possible. Not tear down the world around them and force them to return to agrarian society and fiefdom. You're argument is sound, but it is a bit naive in my opinion.
My argument is simply that purity testing people who suggest that we should deal with the gunshot wound is dumb and only exists as part of a broad propaganda effort by the people who shot us. And that we should stop doing that. You should listen to my argument though because I have solar panels and am therefore sufficiently pure to speak.
|
On December 13 2019 05:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You day you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”. I never said I would not discuss anything with them. But would you rather take advice on weight loss from some fat guy on the street or a in shape doctor? And if the fat guy on the street insulted you over and over again for you saying the problem was calories and not the magic belt he was trying to sell you, it might be a reasonable question ask how exactly that magic belt is supposed to work. Yes, that's because me or you being in shape personally is a problem that is fixed by me or you personally. I am going to need to do sport, I am going to need to eat healthier. Now if you want individuals to be in shape, as opposed to just a specific individual like me or you, it would be much more effective to focus on the forces driving obesity rates, and those forces are capitalistic in nature (fast food, cheap unhealthy food, and so on). So, in a sense, excellent analogy. They are greed and selfishness in nature, which does not magically go away when you switch to socialism. ...and therefore it makes perfect sense to keep a system that rewards greed and selfishness? So far yes it does, and then use regulation and policy to try to make the best for society goals the most profitable. That is why things like the Carbon Tax and Circular cities are gaining so much traction. But if you have better solution, by all means present it and then try to pilot it.
Self-contradictory statement where we keep rewarding greed and selfishness systematically and at the same time we ensure that "the best goals for society" are the most profitable. As a member of the capitalist class you will by definition make more profit if you focus on yourself than if you focus on the whole of society. There is no way to challenge that fact without systemic change.
Edit: and for the record, no, it doesn't make perfect sense at all, what the hell? If we recognize that something that exists in human nature is bad, like greed, we can still recognize that creating a system that doesn't reward greed is good. We've done it for a bunch of other stuff. Just because people are going to murder other people no matter what we do doesn't mean our system shouldn't fight against murder.
|
|
|
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked.
|
|
|
On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:
Edit to your edit: Since you can't, do you then understand why people are apprehensive to completely change their system when every time they have seen other countries do it the perceived benefits still just end up with elites, the environment is still abused, and the quality of life for the poor is a bad or worse than they currently enjoy?
You could get way more people on board if you talked about solutions, and how you would deal with the problems that have happened in socialist nations. The tact of smugly constantly talking about "both sides" when you don't have a working example is what frustrates people.
I don't believe you, I think you want me to bring up solutions because it would be much easier to attack any type of solution that I could be offering than it is to defend against the attacks that I bring up against the current system.
|
United States43967 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked.
It’s not though. My supposed solar panels aren’t going to save the world. We’re still just as fucked as before I got them. They don’t make a difference, just as your salt consumption doesn’t change the outcome of the gunshot wound.
It’s literally just a turning point USA gotcha point made by idiots and people who saw idiots making it and didn’t think about it too deeply. Just like “you say billionaires should fund healthcare for all but you also have surplus income and haven’t paid for anyone else’s medical bills” and all the rest of the purity testing so called hypocrisy.
I’m not too fussed about the climate debate you were having with GH, I just want people to stop doing hypocrisy gotchas.
|
I've had the impeachment debate on today in the background. This quip from Hank Johnson on Matt Gaetz is pretty brutal. I started laughing almost instantly the second I realized what Johnson was about to say. He never mentions Gaetz by name but mentions substance abuse issues and DUIs, two things Matt Gaetz is rather notorious for:
|
On December 13 2019 05:23 JimmiC wrote:
That is a bad analogy.
But basically what I'm saying is swapping the ISM or the system does not instantly get rid of greed and selfishness. And you are going to need to have people, the current ones, living in and running your system. How are you going to protect your system from this, keep in mind that it is so powerful that you can't come up with an example where it has not ruined the attempt at socialism.
I'm saying that Greed and selfishness still exist when you change the system, and they are still profitable for those who partake.
Okay here's a better analogy.
Power hunger is in human nature. No matter what system we choose, there are going to be people hungry for power that will try and get more power for themselves. Therefore, there's no reason to change from authoritarianism to democracy, because getting ourselves a democracy will not remove the power hunger in human nature.
|
|
|
On December 13 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked. It’s not though. My supposed solar panels aren’t going to save the world. We’re still just as fucked as before I got them. They don’t make a difference, just as your salt consumption doesn’t change the outcome of the gunshot wound. It’s literally just a turning point USA gotcha point made by idiots and people who saw idiots making it and didn’t think about it too deeply. Just like “you say billionaires should fund healthcare for all but you also have surplus income and haven’t paid for anyone else’s medical bills” and all the rest of the purity testing so called hypocrisy. I’m not too fussed about the climate debate you were having with GH, I just want people to stop doing hypocrisy gotchas.
The solar panel thing is only for data purposes. I know it we're still fucked. I want to see what the data says wherever you live can generate via solar and if that is the best source of energy, or if you should be looking towards geothermal or tidal. That's what I wanted from that discussion.
It wasn't really a debate either. More of me being tired of the hijacking of discussions to bitch about how mistreated he is by democrats. It's both parties and independents.
|
On December 13 2019 05:31 Ben... wrote:I've had the impeachment debate on today in the background. This quip from Hank Johnson on Matt Gaetz is pretty brutal. I started laughing almost instantly the second I realized what Johnson was about to say. He never mentions Gaetz by name but mentions substance abuse issues and DUIs, two things Matt Gaetz is rather notorious for: https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1205178045004427264
I'm just waiting for the summary to come out. Watched the clip and the look on Gaetz's face at the end? Priceless.
|
On December 13 2019 05:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:
Edit to your edit: Since you can't, do you then understand why people are apprehensive to completely change their system when every time they have seen other countries do it the perceived benefits still just end up with elites, the environment is still abused, and the quality of life for the poor is a bad or worse than they currently enjoy?
You could get way more people on board if you talked about solutions, and how you would deal with the problems that have happened in socialist nations. The tact of smugly constantly talking about "both sides" when you don't have a working example is what frustrates people.
I don't believe you, I think you want me to bring up solutions because it would be much easier to attack any type of solution that I could be offering than it is to defend against the attacks that I bring up against the current system. And that is your right to believe, but the reality is you are going to face opposition no matter what change you try to make on anything you are going to face opposition. You need to learn how to turn that opposition, well meaning or not, into an ally or nothing will change. People can't follow or grasp a plan if it does not exist. If you can't explain how your version of socialism is better than the USSR's then that is what people will think. Outside of the people at the very top most people are very frustrated with the system they just don't believe that yours is better and you are unwilling to say how it is, because either it is hard or because you don't know. In my job when people don't like the policy we enact I ask them how they would do it better, I then bring up why we didn't do that or what problems that would create. Other times they bring up things we didn't think of and that are well reasoned, we then enact those changes. That is why engagement is so important. What is super frustrating though is those that can point out problems in everything but have no solutions, those people are just complainers and seem to enjoy the act of complaining rather than actually wanting things to be better.
Do you remember what I answered the last three or four times you asked this? I don't want to implement my version of socialism. I want to convince people that what we have now is, in technical terms, bad, and then once I've done that I want the people that I convinced to work with me so that we find a better solution together.
You are demanding that I do the work for you and give you the future, and you'd just have to say "Yes I'll take it" or "No I won't take it". Just look at the present and decide if you think it's good or bad. If you think it's bad, work with me on the future. If you think it's good, don't.
|
|
|
United States43967 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 05:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked. It’s not though. My supposed solar panels aren’t going to save the world. We’re still just as fucked as before I got them. They don’t make a difference, just as your salt consumption doesn’t change the outcome of the gunshot wound. It’s literally just a turning point USA gotcha point made by idiots and people who saw idiots making it and didn’t think about it too deeply. Just like “you say billionaires should fund healthcare for all but you also have surplus income and haven’t paid for anyone else’s medical bills” and all the rest of the purity testing so called hypocrisy. I’m not too fussed about the climate debate you were having with GH, I just want people to stop doing hypocrisy gotchas. The solar panel thing is only for data purposes. I know it we're still fucked. I want to see what the data says wherever you live can generate via solar and if that is the best source of energy, or if you should be looking towards geothermal or tidal. That's what I wanted from that discussion. It wasn't really a debate either. More of me being tired of the hijacking of discussions to bitch about how mistreated he is by democrats. It's both parties and independents.
452 kWh in September, 370 October, 259 November (we had some snow).
But it’s not intended to offset my electricity usage, I was replacing the roof and decided to try some games with the tax code. It’s very much not paying for itself. However if I can get the price of the new roof as a necessary solar install cost then the tax credit makes the panels free.
|
On December 13 2019 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 05:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked. It’s not though. My supposed solar panels aren’t going to save the world. We’re still just as fucked as before I got them. They don’t make a difference, just as your salt consumption doesn’t change the outcome of the gunshot wound. It’s literally just a turning point USA gotcha point made by idiots and people who saw idiots making it and didn’t think about it too deeply. Just like “you say billionaires should fund healthcare for all but you also have surplus income and haven’t paid for anyone else’s medical bills” and all the rest of the purity testing so called hypocrisy. I’m not too fussed about the climate debate you were having with GH, I just want people to stop doing hypocrisy gotchas. The solar panel thing is only for data purposes. I know it we're still fucked. I want to see what the data says wherever you live can generate via solar and if that is the best source of energy, or if you should be looking towards geothermal or tidal. That's what I wanted from that discussion. It wasn't really a debate either. More of me being tired of the hijacking of discussions to bitch about how mistreated he is by democrats. It's both parties and independents. 452 kWh in September, 370 October, 259 November (we had some snow). But it’s not intended to offset my electricity usage, I was replacing the roof and decided to try some games with the tax code. It’s very much not paying for itself. However if I can get the price of the new roof as a necessary solar install cost then the tax credit makes the panels free.
Aren't personal solar panels a long term deal anyway? You don't have near enough of them to really get a positive ROI in a short amount of time. I think after 3 years (?) it makes a small difference. Not sure. And who doesn't like a tax write-off?
|
|
|
United States43967 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:46 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 05:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 05:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I agree it is dumb. But through this so called purity testing, we get answers to questions and possible discussion. That you have solar panels (supposedly) would invite me to ask if you have data on how much you generate and what the offset of that is based on your previous electrical needs. Then it would lead to further discussion. That's better than scream "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! TEAR DOWN DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST INSTITUTIONS!" That is a short term solution with long term consequences being shouted half cocked. It’s not though. My supposed solar panels aren’t going to save the world. We’re still just as fucked as before I got them. They don’t make a difference, just as your salt consumption doesn’t change the outcome of the gunshot wound. It’s literally just a turning point USA gotcha point made by idiots and people who saw idiots making it and didn’t think about it too deeply. Just like “you say billionaires should fund healthcare for all but you also have surplus income and haven’t paid for anyone else’s medical bills” and all the rest of the purity testing so called hypocrisy. I’m not too fussed about the climate debate you were having with GH, I just want people to stop doing hypocrisy gotchas. The solar panel thing is only for data purposes. I know it we're still fucked. I want to see what the data says wherever you live can generate via solar and if that is the best source of energy, or if you should be looking towards geothermal or tidal. That's what I wanted from that discussion. It wasn't really a debate either. More of me being tired of the hijacking of discussions to bitch about how mistreated he is by democrats. It's both parties and independents. 452 kWh in September, 370 October, 259 November (we had some snow). But it’s not intended to offset my electricity usage, I was replacing the roof and decided to try some games with the tax code. It’s very much not paying for itself. However if I can get the price of the new roof as a necessary solar install cost then the tax credit makes the panels free. Aren't personal solar panels a long term deal anyway? You don't have near enough of them to really get a positive ROI in a short amount of time. I think after 3 years (?) it makes a small difference. Not sure. And who doesn't like a tax write-off?
They’re not paying for their opportunity cost either. In my internal financials I’m treating them as an annuity and valuing the electricity they generate at 50% more than market because I think green electricity is more valuable. I’m depreciating the panels straight line over 180 months and I’m recognizing that the beta on the returns is low. But they’re still earning less than their time adjusted cost of capital. Would not recommend unless you get creative with taxes.
It’d be better if I were a large producer with a dedicated array, or if I wasn’t competing with natural gas electricity, or if I was saving on some other overhead on an isolated off grid location which would have high costs to be connected to the grid. But residential solar is not competitive with the other potential uses of $15,000 in cash.
When I eventually buy some land on a mountainside I’ll get solar there too. But for a city house it’s not the best investment, even in sunny New Mexico.
|
On December 13 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:43 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:
Edit to your edit: Since you can't, do you then understand why people are apprehensive to completely change their system when every time they have seen other countries do it the perceived benefits still just end up with elites, the environment is still abused, and the quality of life for the poor is a bad or worse than they currently enjoy?
You could get way more people on board if you talked about solutions, and how you would deal with the problems that have happened in socialist nations. The tact of smugly constantly talking about "both sides" when you don't have a working example is what frustrates people.
I don't believe you, I think you want me to bring up solutions because it would be much easier to attack any type of solution that I could be offering than it is to defend against the attacks that I bring up against the current system. And that is your right to believe, but the reality is you are going to face opposition no matter what change you try to make on anything you are going to face opposition. You need to learn how to turn that opposition, well meaning or not, into an ally or nothing will change. People can't follow or grasp a plan if it does not exist. If you can't explain how your version of socialism is better than the USSR's then that is what people will think. Outside of the people at the very top most people are very frustrated with the system they just don't believe that yours is better and you are unwilling to say how it is, because either it is hard or because you don't know. In my job when people don't like the policy we enact I ask them how they would do it better, I then bring up why we didn't do that or what problems that would create. Other times they bring up things we didn't think of and that are well reasoned, we then enact those changes. That is why engagement is so important. What is super frustrating though is those that can point out problems in everything but have no solutions, those people are just complainers and seem to enjoy the act of complaining rather than actually wanting things to be better. Do you remember what I answered the last three or four times you asked this? I don't want to implement my version of socialism. I want to convince people that what we have now is, in technical terms, bad, and then once I've done that I want the people that I convinced to work with me so that we find a better solution together.You are demanding that I do the work for you and give you the future, and you'd just have to say "Yes I'll take it" or "No I won't take it". Just look at the present and decide if you think it's good or bad. If you think it's bad, work with me on the future. If you think it's good, don't. Most people agree that it is bad, and want to get to discussing about how to make it better, but guess what you are going to run into some opposition so deal with it, not everyone is going to agree with exactly how to get there. You and GH seem stuck in this loop of proving to everyone that the current system is broke, most people agree, stop beating everyones head with it. Were all waiting for you guys to get to the part where you start talking about making it better. And it has to be more than the word "socialism", get into the guts, be prepared to make mistakes and have people disagree. But as long as you are just going to keep ruining every discussion with "that won't work only socialism will", oh how will work? "no you don't get it, its bad", "ok, well what would be better" " no you don't get its bad" "Ok so what would you do different, whats better" "if your asking that you don't get how bad it is" . We will be in the same frustrating loop over and over again. Take a risk, put it out there with how you want it to work, get criticized, find answers this is how complex problems get solved, and its hard and its not easy. But enough with the non stop negativity and putting all the blame on a scapegoat it won't ever fix anything. I
No I'm not going to take a risk, thanks for the proposition though.
The amount of people who will vote for Sanders will be the amount of people who agree with it. If it's true that most people agree then we'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
