|
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 |
was just trying to put myself in the shoes of a MAGA cult member.
Edit: I felt like some of the more unhinged stuff I said later on in the previous post were a giveaway that I was trolling but I should've remembered about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law.
|
On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok.
I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway).
Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable?
On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan.
It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working.
I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it).
|
On September 16 2020 11:15 Anc13nt wrote:was just trying to put myself in the shoes of a MAGA cult member. Edit: I felt like some of the more unhinged stuff I said later on in the previous post were a giveaway that I was trolling but I should've remembered about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law.
I am happy you haven't read enough of this thread to know how many have posted basically the same stuff before. Like I said, every now and then one of them shows up talking about libtards and get banned in like 4 hours.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 13:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). So Scientific America endorsed Biden as meaningless grandstanding as a distraction to what?
Have to deconstruct that a bit.
The editors at Scientific American endorsed Biden for their own reasons. But I decided to read it and holy shit it reads like it was written for WaPo by Biden PR. If they wanted to make it about science they could have and had a strong position imo, instead they wrote a bunch of uncritical talking points intentionally skirting around the both of them are terminal threats to a desirable ecological future thing and only mentioning at the end that the plausibility of better policy becoming more than a rhetorical appeal is basically non-existent.
So intentional or not, the primary thing it distracts people from is that Biden's plans (even if Republicans gave him everything he wanted without resistance) still put us on a path toward ecological catastrophe. Not a contradiction I'd expect partisans to reconcile, but one I'd expect people purporting to be compelled to act by evidence and science would be obligated to at least pretend to try to.
But really it's not intended to distract from any one particular thing but to occupy the attention of those that engage US politics superficially and get their jollies from the typically inane grandstanding that ensues.
In the most basic and literal sense people opted to score some easy serotonin grandstanding about Trump and Danglars and pat themselves on the back rather than engage the ever coveted discussion of solutions with Warsame they claim to always be after.
Also between campaign financing, forced sterilizations at concentration camps, habitually criminal behavior by the FBI/NSA/etc, massive bipartisan failures at the federal, state, and local level on covid-19, decades of decaying infrastructure, the collapsing middle class, etc. that have come up recently, the stuff liberals and Trump supporters focus on are the inane partisan bickering where they rhetorically ponder the mystery that is the unmitigated idiocy of the other.
TLDR: SA could have made a scientifically styled argument about how they are both bad options but Biden is less bad/Trump is unacceptable, instead they opted to make a partisan gotv appeal and undermine their credibility. It effectively distracts people from serious issues (even the ones underpinning the endorsement) so they can point out how stupid the other side is for not seeing the stupidity on their own (neither really being entirely wrong and both being unbearably hypocritical the whole time).
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm addressing this general curiosity (because I don't think it's unique) and fleshing out my point (hence preserving the quote chain), not addressing JimmiC specifically for reasons I presume are obvious at this point.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it).
Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description.
That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile".
|
On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile".
Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then.
Which one is the good guy?
|
On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it).
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07102018/ipcc-climate-change-science-report-data-carbon-emissions-heat-waves-extreme-weather-oil-gas-agriculture
This article actually does a pretty good job of explaining what the study that indicated that "we have only 12 years to avert a climate crisis" actually said. "To keep warming under 1.5°C, countries will have to cut global CO2 emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by around 2050," (Note 2030 is 12 years after 2018, when the report was made).
It also says, "More than 1.5°C warming means nearly all of the planet's coral reefs will die, droughts and heat waves will continue to intensify, and an additional 10 million people will face greater risks from rising sea level, including deadly storm surges and flooded coastal zones. Most at risk are millions of people in less developed parts of the world, the panel warned."
So in all likelihood, the human race will not face doomsday-apocalypse type disaster from over 1.5°C warming, but it will nonetheless suffer greatly if we do not make significant efforts to lower GHG emissions. Thus, I do not think it is fair to compare Trump and Biden on climate to "cancer" and "getting shot." I'm aware Biden will probably not do enough to combat climate change but I am pretty sure he will not go as far in the opposite direction as Trump, at minimum. There is still a trade-off between voting for Trump or voting for Biden when it comes to the climate, and it is not between fast death and slightly slower death, respectively.
Just two examples from the wikipedia article (which basically makes Trump look like the second coming of Hitler himself): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration#Climate_change
"April 2020, he issued his new vehicle emissions standards, which are projected to result in an additional billion tons of carbon dioxide, increasing annual U.S. emissions by about one-fifth."
"A 2018 analysis reported that the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80,000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."
|
On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy?
Is this discussion about Biden vs Trump on ecological matters or am I following it wrong? Trump's record in that regard is extremely alarming:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
What evidence is there that Biden would be anywhere near as negligent as this?
|
|
|
Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton.
|
On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy?
Which of the two would you prefer to be stranded on a desert island with?
|
On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton.
I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change.
|
On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton.
I'm saying that if Scientific American wanted to maintain the illusion they should have at least pretended to wrestle with the inadequacy of Biden's plans rather than publish such a shameless pr stunt.
|
On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change.
Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all.
|
On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways.
I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable.
You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable.
In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical.
|
|
|
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph.
|
On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 16:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile. Ok. I said they are both terminal threats to our ecological future. You know that's not "the same" or "equal" because you had the sense to leave that strawman out of the quotation marks (but pushed the nonsensical position anyway). Cancer and getting shot at are both terminal threats yet we can clearly identify them as not "the same" or "equal". Surely we haven't descended so deep into unfettered ignorance that this isn't readily recognizable? On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. It's hilarious you say this and then the thread perfectly demonstrates that it is exactly meant as a meaningless grandstanding distraction for partisans to bicker about and it is working. I know I'm chasing a dragon here but danglars and I are using the term partisan to describe different things (him the endorsement, me the people absentmindedly engrossed by it). Yeah yeah, I know: "the right thing but not quite enough" and "the absolute worst you can do on every level" are both to be labeled and rejected with the same great grand pompous vehement description. That's fine, not seeing the difference between light grey and pitch black is the signature mark of your contributions, and I won't argue because I know it gets absolutely nowhere. I just suggest that on that basis, you don't call anyone's contributions "puerile". Two people with a rucksack full of water come across a dying man in the desert. One suggests they kick him to death and take his stuff. The other says you can't do that because its immoral, but he'll die soon anyway from thirst so they can have his stuff then. Which one is the good guy? Neither, but which one you think is better depends on what you value. Much like Biden and Trump are not good guys, but to me and most of the rest of the posters one is clearly way better in very meaningful ways. I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable. You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable. In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:On September 16 2020 17:14 Starlightsun wrote:On September 16 2020 17:09 Anc13nt wrote:Greenhorizons is basically echoing the Julian Assange sentiment that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. Not in general but in the case of climate policy and with Biden replacing Clinton. I mean maybe in some respects, but I thought on environmental issues it was pretty unambiguous unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase.
On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph.
I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible.
If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount.
When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it.
The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's.
Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden.
Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough.
The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
