| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8681 Posts
On January 18 2021 22:54 Erasme wrote: We get it. It's just that one look at the senate or the congress will tell you how out of touch those elders are. yeah none of what i said was in defence of the us senate or congress. that place is a shitshow | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11542 Posts
The unquestioning adherence to authority (or at least a fear of retribution after questioning them openly) i was talking about is something i sometimes observe in the children i teach here in Germany, regardless of ethnicity. I mostly have a math/science teachers perspective here. And it is indeed very annoying to try to teach scientific thinking to children which are apparently from very authoritarian households, or who get told by their parents to make a good impression on their teachers by never questioning them, and by never asking any questions if they don't understand something. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On January 18 2021 22:57 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah none of what i said was in defence of the us senate or congress. that place is a shitshow This is not limited to the US though. People who lack either the values or competence (or both) you'd want in a leader but who none-the-less have power are a dime a dozen. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8681 Posts
On January 18 2021 22:55 plated.rawr wrote: Is it not important to point out errors so they can be fixed? If Thunberg gave us some allencompassing plan on how to fix thing, she absolutely would be stepping out of her knowledge. Is it not the more humble approach to point out the errors, back the points by science, then request those that can make changes to figure out what to do? To defer judgement to her elders, so to speak? As for 'waiting her turn' - a part of the argument is that we are out of time. The elders have ignored the warnings for 50 years. The changes must happen now. And power is absolutely not wielded by the deserving or the virtuous. theres nothing humble about condescendingly asking "how dare you?". if all she did was relay data from scientific studies, outlined the problems and then walked away it wouldnt be a problem. the issue is her agenda that those currently in power are willfully destroying future generations' livelihood because she lacks the patience to wait for said people to come up with a practical solution. i mean i can appreciate that time is of the essence and ultimately in the worst case scenario the younger generations will be impacted the most. however whether we all like it or not there just isnt a clear cut solution to reducing emissions anywhere near low enough, let alone zero. i would go as far as saying that her constant vocality about zero emissions does more to distract people from actually focusing on implementing positive change than it does to help. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8681 Posts
On January 18 2021 22:59 Simberto wrote: I wasn't specifically talking about Asians here (though that has sparked this discussion i guess, but at least for it i have diverged from that specific topic). I personally also think that it is highly questionable to try to make some generic statements about "the asians", as if they were all basically identical. The unquestioning adherence to authority (or at least a fear of retribution after questioning them openly) i was talking about is something i sometimes observe in the children i teach here in Germany, regardless of ethnicity. I mostly have a math/science teachers perspective here. And it is indeed very annoying to try to teach scientific thinking to children which are apparently from very authoritarian households, or who get told by their parents to make a good impression on their teachers by never questioning them, and by never asking any questions if they don't understand something. yeah im aware that the generalisation is going to rub against some people uncomfortably. like i said previously though, just because its a generalisation doesnt mean that there isnt a degree of truth in it. if it helps i could be more specific and say east asians, although i think most people already acknowledge my reference to this. On January 18 2021 23:04 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: This is not limited to the US though. People who lack either the values or competence (or both) you'd want in a leader but who none-the-less have power are a dime a dozen. well like i said, there are always exceptions. the original discussion came from a point someone made about differences in western vs asian performance in certain fields. most of what ive been saying was just generally highlighting what i thought provided an advantage to people raised in east asian culture. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28678 Posts
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8681 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. ) It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. well i referenced the infamous speech because its the most well known. my overall point still stands that i dont deny that she has sourced facts and data from experts. my issue with her is she pushes for policies without taking into the practicality of things because shes blindly obsessed with hitting that magical target. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7891 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. ) It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. Among things I don't like about the whole Thunberg thing, the whole "follow the science" bandwagon is pretty high on the list. Scientists are not people who tell us what to do. That is not their function. I think Sabine Hossenfelder nails it in that video. It lasts 6 minutes and it really highlights the misunderstandings about what scientists do and don't do. Just to be clear. I think we have to act against climate change (so does she by the way). But that's not because we should "follow the science". It's a political decision taken for political reasons. Science is just making models and predictions. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28678 Posts
 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28678 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: Among things I don't like about the whole Thunberg thing, the whole "follow the science" bandwagon is pretty high on the list. Scientists are not people who tell us what to do. That is not their function. I think Sabine Hossenfelder nails it in that video. It lasts 6 minutes and it really highlights the misunderstandings about what scientists do and don't do. Just to be clear. I think we have to act against climate change (so does she by the way). But that's not because we should "follow the science". It's a political decision taken for political reasons. Science is just making models and predictions. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nGVIJSW0Y3k I mean, people can look at what scientists are saying and then choose to not listen because they don't favor the same ends. If someone honestly states that 'I'm fine with x projected damage from climate change and I prefer that over us consuming less fossil fuels and meat, because damn I love the latter and I don't really care about the generations that come after me', then I can't argue that they're not following the science. But there are still a lot of people who pretend or claim that the consequences of not significantly lowering global emissions aren't going to be severe. For those people, they should educate themselves more on what scientists are saying. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: The goals of 0 emissions are only seemingly impossible because politicians ignored the advice from climate scientists from ~1970 until today though, because they favored short term economic gains over the long term welfare of the planet. Almost the entire population on earth lives close to zero emissions, or at least below a level which would damage the earth. All of Africa, India and Latin America, most of East Asia. It is maybe a billion people who cause nearly all emissions. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7891 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:21 farvacola wrote: There comes a point where policy and science collide and there is not a principled way to separate the two that makes any sense. There’s no doubt that turning science into politics is a fraught and difficult process, but relying on categorical separation as a way to address those conflicts isn’t the solution imo I suggest you watch the video. But to sum it up, no. Science is giving us facts, not a direction to take. It's not about following the science or what theory you believe. It's about your opinion. Do you believe that protecting the coal industry is more important than the problems warming will cause in the developing world? If yes, great, that's your political opinion. My opinion is that it's a bad idea. Notice that it's not about me "following the science". It's just my opinion that the middle east becoming inhabitable is a bigger concern that the coal industry. But again. If you want to follow up on that discussion, take five minutes and watch the video I posted. I don't want to spend four pages paraphrasing it and it's 5 minutes long, | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8681 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: The goals of 0 emissions are only seemingly impossible because politicians ignored the advice from climate scientists from ~1970 until today though, because they favored short term economic gains over the long term welfare of the planet. i have no idea if this is actually true but for arguments sake lets say it was. the people who were in power at the time perhaps lacked the foresight to enact change and so could be partially responsible for our current predicament. fast forward ~50 years and whats done is done. you cant go back and change it and blaming those people isnt going to do anything. look at the current situation now, what should be done and what can be done to meet that goal. anything else is just a distraction. unfortunately for greta she vastly overestimates the "what can be done" part and she actively takes part in being a distraction by creating a following for something that isnt possible. On January 18 2021 23:26 Grumbels wrote: Almost the entire population on earth lives close to zero emissions, or at least below a level which would damage the earth. All of Africa, India and Latin America, most of East Asia. It is maybe a billion people who cause nearly all emissions. this is sarcasm right? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote: I suggest you watch the video. But to sum it up, no. Science is giving us facts, not a direction to take. It's not about following the science or what theory you believe. It's about your opinion. Do you believe that protecting the coal industry is more important than the problems warming will cause in the developing world? If yes, great, that's your political opinion. My opinion is that it's a bad idea. Notice that it's not about me "following the science". It's just my opinion that the middle east becoming inhabitable is a bigger concern that the coal industry. But again. If you want to follow up on that discussion, take five minutes and watch the video I posted. I don't want to spend four pages paraphrasing it and it's 5 minutes long, I’ve already seen that video and I still reject your sterile notion of what science is. If facts could be evaluated in a scarcity free vacuum bereft of humans, then science could exist as a pure thing. Alas, that’s a fantasy in much the same way that clean categories are. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7891 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean, people can look at what scientists are saying and then choose to not listen because they don't favor the same ends. If someone honestly states that 'I'm fine with x projected damage from climate change and I prefer that over us consuming less fossil fuels and meat, because damn I love the latter and I don't really care about the generations that come after me', then I can't argue that they're not following the science. But there are still a lot of people who pretend or claim that the consequences of not significantly lowering global emissions aren't going to be severe. For those people, they should educate themselves more on what scientists are saying. Well yes, but no. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, how much effort we should do about it is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with "following the science" or "listening to scientists". I think the people you describe are just the other side of the coin of the people who pretend it's about "following the science". We empower them by pretending it's a scientific problem. It's not. Science tell us what will happen, and then we make decisions. And those decisions are political. The debate is stuck between the two falsehoods: the side that says that scientists are the one who know what we have to do and the ones that say that the scientists are wrong or that they have their own scientists. Again, please take 5 minutes and watch the video. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7891 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:31 farvacola wrote: I’ve already seen that video and I still reject your sterile notion of what science is. If facts could be evaluated in a scarcity free vacuum bereft of humans, then science could exist as a pure thing. Alas, that’s a fantasy in much the same way that clean categories are. It's not for you or me to decide what science is. Science makes observations, derives theories from them, and make predictions. Period. If you want to transform science into a bunch of smart people who tell us what to do, you not only destroy science but you create a debate where we argue about facts rather than arguing about opinions. Climate change denial is the other side of your coin. You are doing the same thing. Transforming science into the art of choosing what direction to take. In other words, politics. Science give us facts. You take your decision based on those facts according to your opinion. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7891 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9663 Posts
On January 18 2021 23:32 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well yes, but no. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, how much effort we should do about it is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with "following the science" or "listening to scientists". I think the people you describe are just the other side of the coin of the people who pretend it's about "following the science". We empower them by pretending it's a scientific problem. It's not. Science tell us what will happen, and then we make decisions. And those decisions are political. The debate is stuck between the two falsehoods: the side that says that scientists are the one who know what we have to do and the ones that say that the scientists are wrong or that they have their own scientists. Again, please take 5 minutes and watch the video. dr hossenfelder is ok but she sounds alot more convincing when there's no-one there arguing against her. That video is nothing but a rant about a strawman. I would counter her argument by saying that 'follow the science' generally means 'if science says something will have negative or positive effects, we should factor that heavily in our decision making.' Also she's clearly, definitely wrong about people who genuinely don't believe in climate change not being anti-science. When all the good science is telling you something and you refuse to believe it, you are anti science, no matter what political or personal justification there is for it. What dr hossenfelder is doing here is disregarding what people are saying about their beliefs re climate change, and instead putting her own interpretation in the place of their words. Its a terrible, terrible way to make a point. | ||
| ||
|
|
LiuLi Cup
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
Big Brain Bouts
Iba vs GgMaChine
TriGGeR vs Bunny
Reynor vs Classic
Serral vs Clem
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
Code For Giants Cup
SC Evo League
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Cham
GuMiho vs Ryung
Zoun vs Spirit
Rogue vs MaNa
[BSL 2025] Weekly
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
