|
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 September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol
Part of my original point was how the whole thing is performative self-soothing.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26791 Posts
On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol
Also a rather pertinent point. I’d love to meet such a person (out of curiosity, I imagine I wouldn’t enjoy their company for long)
|
On September 16 2020 20:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol This is correct, but i would contend that there's plenty of people who do think that they are pro science and support Biden partly based on that, and the SA's endorsement is likely to reinforce that. Public opinion is a big factor, and yeah I accept that the relationship between SA and science as a whole is complex, but public opinion of science is more and more becoming yet another political battleground, and endorsing Biden isn't going to help that situation at all in the long run, because it misrepresents what it means for a politician to be pro-science.
Fair enough, where I’d put my personal spin on things is that I don’t think it’s possible for science to be apolitical, and there is abundant US history stretching back to at least the Progressive Era detailing the ebb and flow of the US body politic’s relation to science as a political object. Science has always been political because it is inherently a materialist endeavor imo.
Part of what Trump seized on and caught Clintonite Dems off guard is the notion that if facile skepticism is offered on the proper terms, average people will buy it and sell any latent faith in folks ostensibly smarter than them. I don’t see SA’s endorsement having any real impact on that specifically, but I personally know at least a few science folks who both cherish their ethics of neutrality and respect the views, unusual in occurrence or not, of high watermark sources of scientific information. I think that’s where SA’s endorsement could prove helpful to folks interested in doing something, hell anything, about pandemics, climate change, public health, and the numerous other science-tied political issues.
On September 16 2020 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol Part of my original point was how the whole thing is performative self-soothing.
Yes, in large part that’s what SAs endorsement is.
|
On September 16 2020 20:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:56 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:39 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:34 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
You're mischaracterizing my argument,
I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother.
I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate.
Think about the endorsement like this:
Biden's policies are a half measure between the anti-science polic of Trump and the Pro-science policy of earlier left wing primary candidates.
Why are they backing the half measure now, instead of backing the pro science measures that were available earlier?
I would suggest it has more to do with funding streams for science than it does any particular dedication to using science for good outcomes for everyone. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong. C did exist, and Scientific American was silent. So they should double down on their mistake and remain silent? No, but as a science publication, endorsing an anti-science candidate because he isn't as anti-science as the other guy is embarrassing. That America only has those two choices right now? So they should stay silent to avoid embarrassment instead of trying to make the better choice? No, they should have backed the pro-science candidates before, unless they are prepared to admit that this is about funding for science and getting revenge on Trump for shutting science programs down. Would you be happy if they endorsed a hardcore right wing Christian activist who was equally 'not as bad as Trump'? How about a flat Earther? They can't those are not options. I'm not playing the fantasy version where we can make up alternative realities and then talk to those dealing with the actual current options. *sigh* Its amazing how people like you refuse to engage their imagination even for a second if its inconvenient. Its like you can't bring yourself to honestly answer the question so you have to avoid it. As a scientific publication, their primary interest should be getting people to take science seriously. Backing a candidate who in all likelihood will spend the next few years ignoring any scientific advice he gets if its inconvenient for him is very. very bad for science, when compared to just not backing any candidate. Shit they can criticize Trump all they want, but they have tied the fate of science in the US to someone who isn't worth it, and will show himself to be not worth it. I have a fantastic imagination. In fact I think if that was the goal I could come up with 1000's of ideas better than them backing Bernie. His plan was much better than Biden but it also would not save the world, and them backing him does not mean he wins the primary or the election, or even gets all his policy in. I would go with something like inventing cold fusion and giving it freely to the world. As I have been trying to say, and Wombat said and numerous others is if you read it, it was much more against Trump than for Biden. It was also not only about climate. They are saying that Trump presents a unique and extreme danger to people and the future of many many things. He is a threat to truth and facts. Question. What are your thoughts on those people who didn't vote for Bernie because he was not their perfect candidate? They thought he was way better than Biden but not enough or too much of whatever. Do you think they made the right choice not voting for Bernie in the primary? If there was enough enough of them that would have got Bernie in over Biden do you think it was a mistake in them not supporting Bernie? Or do you think they should be in here talking about how Biden and Bernie are the same and it really does not matter? Or if they believed Bidens policy was better and Bernie won should they not have voted for Bernie in the election vs Trump since he was not their first choice?
OK firstly, I never said that Biden and Trump are the same. I said that if you look at their climate change policy, we are fucked either way, so in that area, the difference is barely relevant.
Secondly, I would encourage this hypothetical person to vote for the candidate they want to vote for. Even at a push, vote for the least worst option. However, I would respect their right to criticize all candidates if they felt that none represented them, and to go further in suggesting that maybe a system that chooses candidates that fail at representing most people is broken and needs changing. I would encourage them to prioritize criticism of the system over voting for the least worst option.
I disagree that Trump poses a unique threat when it comes to science and facts. Shit that little potion in the US has been brewing for decades. 15 years ago people were saying exactly the same shit about creationists.
Go find me a politician who won't blatantly lie to further their interests. Trump is just worse at it.
I believe Trump poses a unique threat to democracy in the US, more than science and facts. Anti-science opinion in the US was there before Trump took over, he just capitalized on it.
But democracy is not SA's area.
|
On September 16 2020 20:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol Part of my original point was how the whole thing is performative self-soothing. Yes, in large part that’s what SAs endorsement is.
I would extend that to people using it as a cudgel against Republicans/Trump supporters. As well as to Trump supporters using it to justify irrationality as skepticism.
|
On September 16 2020 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 20:50 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol Part of my original point was how the whole thing is performative self-soothing. Yes, in large part that’s what SAs endorsement is. I would extend that to people using it as a cudgel against Republicans/Trump supporters. As well as to Trump supporters using it to justify irrationality as skepticism.
Right but that framework begs a more fundamental question that ties into my obsession with religion, namely whether it’s possible for someone to do politics or hold beliefs that actively disconcert them. I’d answer yes and go farther, assert that “good” politics and “good” faith require some measure of discomfort related to the subordination of the individual’s libidinal desires to some higher order purpose. Doing the right thing and satisfying one’s appetites tend to conflict, and where they do, making the choice to pursue the former is the stuff of character.
Thinking along those lines reveals why smug centrist libs have such a hard time expanding the tent, where the ideas proffered make the speaker feel righteous and better-than, the impact tends to be marginal and of little consequence.
|
On September 16 2020 21:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
I believe Trump poses a unique threat to democracy in the US, more than science and facts. Anti-science opinion in the US was there before Trump took over, he just capitalized on it.
But democracy is not SA's area.
I think this is a very questionable line to draw.
Democracy requires an informed public. One of the many reasons Trump is a threat to democracy is his sustained attack on the means by which the public are informed. Science is one of the key pillars he is working to undermine.
|
On September 16 2020 21:10 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 21:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
I believe Trump poses a unique threat to democracy in the US, more than science and facts. Anti-science opinion in the US was there before Trump took over, he just capitalized on it.
But democracy is not SA's area. I think this is a very questionable line to draw. Democracy requires an informed public. One of the many reasons Trump is a threat to democracy is his sustained attack on the means by which the public are informed. Science is one of the key pillars he is working to undermine.
I meant a more immediate, concrete threat to democracy, as in he might not leave office when he's supposed to.
When it comes to his undermining of science, Trump isn't the problem, and he certainly isn't unique.He's a symptom of a system that has produced a population unable to understand even the basics of what makes science useful. Remove Trump from that equation and the problem persists.
Again this boils down to criticism of Trump vs endorsement of Biden.
What do you think Biden will do to improve the means by which the public are informed and promote science as a way of thinking and a guide for politics?
|
On September 16 2020 21:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 21:10 Belisarius wrote:On September 16 2020 21:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
I believe Trump poses a unique threat to democracy in the US, more than science and facts. Anti-science opinion in the US was there before Trump took over, he just capitalized on it.
But democracy is not SA's area. I think this is a very questionable line to draw. Democracy requires an informed public. One of the many reasons Trump is a threat to democracy is his sustained attack on the means by which the public are informed. Science is one of the key pillars he is working to undermine. What do you think Biden will do to improve the means by which the public are informed and promote science as a way of thinking and a guide for politics?
Is that the only question to ask here? Isn’t it valid to consider your question secondary to the issue of what will happen should one or the other get elected? I think it’s very possible that SA looked at its options and said, hey, maybe this will mess up our carefully constructed image of neutrality, but here, the consequences of full on science denialism getting a second term warrant taking that risk.
|
On September 16 2020 21:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 21:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 21:10 Belisarius wrote:On September 16 2020 21:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
I believe Trump poses a unique threat to democracy in the US, more than science and facts. Anti-science opinion in the US was there before Trump took over, he just capitalized on it.
But democracy is not SA's area. I think this is a very questionable line to draw. Democracy requires an informed public. One of the many reasons Trump is a threat to democracy is his sustained attack on the means by which the public are informed. Science is one of the key pillars he is working to undermine. What do you think Biden will do to improve the means by which the public are informed and promote science as a way of thinking and a guide for politics? Is that the only question to ask here? Isn’t it valid to consider your question secondary to the issue of what will happen should one or the other get elected? I think it’s very possible that SA looked at its options and said, hey, maybe this will mess up our carefully constructed image of neutrality, but here, the consequences of full on science denialism getting a second term warrant taking that risk?
I definitely assume that this kind of conversation took place.
I just disagree with the conclusion I guess, and I think its maybe short sighted in terms of consequences. I think making this kind of move puts SA in some kind of position that I don't like. Like I said before, its being reported as if 'scientists back Biden', and that's a problem, because its only a small leap from there to 'scientists vote democrat' which in the long term is an incredibly harmful message to send out.
|
On September 16 2020 21:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 21:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 20:50 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 20:29 farvacola wrote:On September 16 2020 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 20:23 farvacola wrote:
SA’s endorsement doesn’t “tie the fate of science” to Biden, that’s meaningless hyperbole. Might it tarnish the rag’s rep when Biden inevitably makes a choice that conflicts with the desires of the scientific community should he win? Sure, likely so. But none of this is happening in a vacuum, and lemme tell you, magazine endorsements are utterly insignificant by comparison with all of the other stuff potentially mooring science to this, that, or the other thing. You don't think the way this has been reported is as if Scientific American speaks for the scientific community? I’m not sure, the relationship between flagship professional mouthpieces and professional consensus writ large is one I would label very complicated. That some media are presenting SA as the de-facto face of science is of middling relevance to whether SAs endorsement bears any relation to the status of science as a thing people do, particularly when viewed in the context of just how poorly millions of Americans understand scientific basics. There’s effectively no one out there saying, “well I was gonna be pro science, but then SA endorsed Biden, guess I’m anti science now,” and if anyone actually thinks that, they were never going to be pro science in the first place lol Part of my original point was how the whole thing is performative self-soothing. Yes, in large part that’s what SAs endorsement is. I would extend that to people using it as a cudgel against Republicans/Trump supporters. As well as to Trump supporters using it to justify irrationality as skepticism. Right but that framework begs a more fundamental question that ties into my obsession with religion, namely whether it’s possible for someone to do politics or hold beliefs that actively disconcert them. I’d answer yes and go farther, assert that “good” politics and “good” faith require some measure of discomfort related to the subordination of the individual’s libidinal desires to some higher order purpose. Doing the right thing and satisfying one’s appetites tend to conflict, and where they do, making the choice to pursue the former is the stuff of character.
I agree on all counts (though I've avoided religion for a while). But part of that is how we socialize our appetites. Part of the problem is people have a hard time distinguishing libidinal desires like 'sex' from the socialized stuff we put on top of/heavily influences it like who they should have sex with, when, how, and why.
One irony I've mentioned to Republicans but is apt for liberals nowadays too is that the people rejecting Biden and Trump are far worse off (relatively, obviously we have electricity and shit now) and face a bleaker future than those that started an international war to found this country.
It takes a special kind of person to convince themselves the likes of Jefferson and Adams have more righteous claim to this passage's truth than the oppressed peoples of the current US and is farcical imo.
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Imagine believing that applies more to wealthy landowning slaveholders than it does to the Black people getting brutalized by police for protesting their murdering and brutalizing Black people (for decades/centuries)? People suggesting the only option is to vote for Biden (who hung out with segregationists and bragged about his role in mass incarceration until it wasn't electorally advantageous) don't have to imagine it, they actually believe that.
It's ghoulish imo.
|
I don't think people in general have ever understood science. Science is doing such obscure stuff now that the effort needed to understand even some of the concepts is very difficult. Pop sci isn't doing very much because people in general are not that into STEM areas to begin with, even though literally everything in society is founded on it or at the very least was impacted by it greatly.
I don't think I've ever had a casual talk about molecular biology, and that field is relatively tame compared to technical fields where lots of mathematics is used.
People just aren't interested in STEM and then it becomes easy when things actually start to look like magic to be afraid of it. Meanwhile they have no idea about the rigorous tests and compliances one needs to do before actually being able to do certain things in the lab or to bring it out to market.
I've heard comments saying things like "virus loading to aleviate disease seems like a slippery slope because its a virus" when the only thing they 'understand' is the word virus, but have no nuance to why people, who devote their lives to it and need specialized equipment actually do it. I want to explain to them why it's not a big deal and I've tried but they don't care because they saw a zombie movie once based on a virus that got out of the lab or some shit.
|
As sad as it is, the immediate topic regarding education would be to make sure it is safe for children and teachers to return to school. That means handling the pandemic in a manner that better than just half arsed.
Getting the pandemic under control with leadership of capable people that listen to the science and sanctions people that are absolute twats, that is the key to promoting science and knowledge in the short to mid term. Oh and more relief support for the American people, so you know they have something else on their mind than being in fucking financial limbo ?
I would trust Biden and Harris to do that.
These pie in the sky discussions are actually draining. You think people are pissed off and angry now and care about science education foremost? There is an actual powder keg of massive proportions with millions of people not being able to pay rent, food and mortgages in the fall.
You all are worried about a science magazine using their first amandment right and tarnishing their reputation by what? Going against Trump, a man with no reputation? Most of you haven't even heard of that magazine before this I bet lol.
Some socialist/communists we got here. We really have to wonder why those never took off with priorities like these ones.
If you actually hope for the revolution to happen, beware - they tend to eat their children.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26791 Posts
On September 16 2020 21:46 Doublemint wrote:As sad as it is, the immediate topic regarding education would be to make sure it is safe for children and teachers to return to school. That means handling the pandemic in a manner that better than just half arsed. Getting the pandemic under control with leadership of capable people that listen to the science and sanctions people that are absolute twats, that is the key to promoting science and knowledge in the short to mid term. Oh and more relief support for the American people, so you know they have something else on their mind than being in fucking financial limbo ? I would trust Biden and Harris to do that. These pie in the sky discussions are actually draining. You think people are pissed off and angry now and care about science education foremost? There is an actual powder keg of massive proportions with millions of people not being able to pay rent, food and mortgages in the fall. You all are worried about a science magazine using their first amandment right and tarnishing their reputation by what? Going against Trump, a man with no reputation? Most of you haven't even heard of that magazine before this I bet lol. Some socialist/communists we got here. We really have to wonder why those never took off with priorities like these ones. If you actually hope for the revolution to happen, beware - they tend to eat their children.
It’s a discussion in the thread, it’s not a particular priority. Probably stimulated by the fact there’s considerably more disagreement than on other topics in here.
Discussion on the general shitstorm that was/is Corona and its impact on the poorest in our society was had aplenty here.
Of course there’s going to be financial hardship given the various structures in place, and people are worried, don’t think that’s much in dispute here.
|
Even if Biden's climate policy (or any policy really) is only better than Trump's approach, but not optimal and so will only slow down climate change and not stop or reverse it, why is it that they're essentially equal? Using the speed analogy, crashing at 30 or 70 mph but still crashing, why not think that 30 mph gives us more time to still make FURTHER changes? Why is it ALWAYS all or nothing?
Life doesn't work like that- you don't lose 30 lbs in 1 month, you lose 4 lbs a month, you don't go from junior to senior engineer in 1 year, it takes multiple years. Why expect the 0-100 policy change? And then say it's "all the same" just because you can't get what you want immediately? Biden is better, end of story, no false equivalence (like someone dying in the desert), no whataboutism.
Scientific American knows this, and they know if the GOP continues its current route, there's not less, there's NO opportunity to change things.
Also, why the hell can't they endorse someone? Wy can't athletes, organizations, companies, actors, celebrities, have political opinions? The country elected a businessman and reality TV star, but nobody else has a valid opinion? Ho hum can't be partisan, that's not right! As if choosing science and reason is somehow partisan.
Finally, endorsing Biden isn't about trying to change the minds of Trump's base- they've made it woefully clear they'll vote for him no matter what he does or doesn't do. It's about changing the minds of the people who dislike him and most of his policies but can't wrap their head around voting for the 'other side'. Even if they don't vote Biden, as long as they don't vote Trump at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
I don't know, probably the one that doesn't make totally irrelevant analogies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
