|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 15 2021 00:34 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. You don’t have to talk down to someone to make a convincing argument. Had I not been the better and more intelligent person here, I might have dismissed you outright. Instead I looked at your article that you googled, (probably quickly and without drinking coffee,) and found it to be ok, if a bit dull. I prefer prettier pictures and graphs like this one. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprintsHumor aside, I didn’t realize wind had made this much ground in the past decade. It’s pretty close to solar and nuclear now. I still have a few other articles to read now. I only brought up the refining aspect of natural gas to highlight the simplicity of it. Not that it’s better than any other type of energy.
Dismissing it would only hurt you, you’re the one repeating stupid lies without thinking about them. If you went outside with your underwear on your head and I pointed it out and laughed at you would you keep it there to avoid feeling like you were validating my mockery? It’d just make you continue to be the fool. I’m absolutely serious, you (and a lot of other people all over the political spectrum) need to start being more skeptical about shit you read in a bubble online. And you need to realize what an idiot you’ve been whenever you fail to perform that diligence.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 15 2021 00:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:49 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. The guy says he's willing to change his mind even after the first post you made (where I get the rudeness), and thanked Silvanel for the links he provided. No need to further berate him - it's probably even counter-productive.  Peer shame is one of the more powerful motivators for behaviour change in humans. The right wing propaganda farms on Twitter that spread this nonsense get around that by a combination of creating a bubble where there are no facts through blocking and simply having no shame. That creates this situation where people repeat the lies to an outside audience and need to be corrected. He should be embarrassed that he fell for what is essentially the political equivalent of a Nigerian prince email. He should be angry at the people who made him look like an idiot by lying to him. He should want to avoid that happening in the future, either by practicing greater skepticism or by not trusting known liars so much. If nobody laughs at him for doing this then he’ll just keep doing it and you’ll have to disprove every single lie they can come up with, one by one. And that’s a lot of lies. We need to get to the point where he realizes those liars are making a fool of him so that he stops trusting them. Or people dig in further because those people make him feel smart/good and we make him feel dumb/bad. I flip flop with the strategies so I'm not meaning to talk down to you hear since that would take a extreme lack of self awareness. Just pointing out that those troll farms, which are not all "right wing" are winning and I'm not sure what the correct strategy is, or if there is one. I do think it starts at holding the people creating the content responsible. The NYT can't just make shit up and put it out there with no consequences and people who profit off their content and the platform providers need some sort of accountability. I'm not sure if that is bans, open up to civil charges or what, but the sad news is the facts are not winning, entertainment is. And the most clicks pays the most not the most correct.
Some people dig in, but that only works as long as they have bubbles to retreat to where there is no shame pressure and they can get validation. Universal social shame is very effective.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 15 2021 01:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:59 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:56 JimmiC wrote:On October 15 2021 00:49 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. The guy says he's willing to change his mind even after the first post you made (where I get the rudeness), and thanked Silvanel for the links he provided. No need to further berate him - it's probably even counter-productive. Peer shame is one of the more powerful motivators for behaviour change in humans. The right wing propaganda farms on Twitter that spread this nonsense get around that by a combination of creating a bubble where there are no facts through blocking and simply having no shame. That creates this situation where people repeat the lies to an outside audience and need to be corrected. He should be embarrassed that he fell for what is essentially the political equivalent of a Nigerian prince email. He should be angry at the people who made him look like an idiot by lying to him. He should want to avoid that happening in the future, either by practicing greater skepticism or by not trusting known liars so much. If nobody laughs at him for doing this then he’ll just keep doing it and you’ll have to disprove every single lie they can come up with, one by one. And that’s a lot of lies. We need to get to the point where he realizes those liars are making a fool of him so that he stops trusting them. Or people dig in further because those people make him feel smart/good and we make him feel dumb/bad. I flip flop with the strategies so I'm not meaning to talk down to you hear since that would take a extreme lack of self awareness. Just pointing out that those troll farms, which are not all "right wing" are winning and I'm not sure what the correct strategy is, or if there is one. I do think it starts at holding the people creating the content responsible. The NYT can't just make shit up and put it out there with no consequences and people who profit off their content and the platform providers need some sort of accountability. I'm not sure if that is bans, open up to civil charges or what, but the sad news is the facts are not winning, entertainment is. And the most clicks pays the most not the most correct. Some people dig in, but that only works as long as they have bubbles to retreat to where there is no shame pressure and they can get validation. Universal social shame is very effective. Maybe, but also impossible in todays world with technology and the genie being out of the bottle.
True. The internet was a mistake.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it.
I didn’t see this because my post put me on a new page but sources? My understanding was that peers essentially define acceptable conduct. If you say racist shit around your peers and they laugh then you’ll keep doing it, if they call you an asshole you’ll stop. If your mom Facebook group tells you daily that mother’s who vaccinate don’t care about their children then you’ll start repeating it. We’re social creatures, not rational islands. Basically everyone in the US South today opposes slavery, but most people 200 years ago were fine with it. We’re not intrinsically better people, we’re in a better environment. But we’re still fine with children in Southeast Asia making our clothes in factories with no fire escapes because that’s just capitalism, it’s normal, all our friends like capitalism. I would absolutely stop eating meat if people gave me shit for it daily, it’s why I eat beef but not puppies. I don’t think calves deserve to be slaughtered, it’s just nobody gives me shit for paying someone to kill them so that I can eat them.
If your peers call you out for repeating garbage you’ll stop doing it. If your peers just blindly retweet everything then you will too. What am I missing?
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it.
It’s absolutely effective, the key difference is the social framework from which the shaming emanates and via what mechanisms it is instilled.
As a direct method for convincing people who are largely operating within socially accepted frameworks, yes it is bloody awful.
If the frameworks shift thus that an individual is massively outside of them, then they have to recalibrate a bit.
Most people who do shitty things on this Earth do so with a genuine belief that they’re doing nothing wrong, one which society largely mirrors so of course shame is a useless correctional mechanism there.
|
On October 15 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:34 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. You don’t have to talk down to someone to make a convincing argument. Had I not been the better and more intelligent person here, I might have dismissed you outright. Instead I looked at your article that you googled, (probably quickly and without drinking coffee,) and found it to be ok, if a bit dull. I prefer prettier pictures and graphs like this one. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprintsHumor aside, I didn’t realize wind had made this much ground in the past decade. It’s pretty close to solar and nuclear now. I still have a few other articles to read now. I only brought up the refining aspect of natural gas to highlight the simplicity of it. Not that it’s better than any other type of energy. Dismissing it would only hurt you, you’re the one repeating stupid lies without thinking about them. If you went outside with your underwear on your head and I pointed it out and laughed at you would you keep it there to avoid feeling like you were validating my mockery? It’d just make you continue to be the fool. I’m absolutely serious, you (and a lot of other people all over the political spectrum) need to start being more skeptical about shit you read in a bubble online. And you need to realize what an idiot you’ve been whenever you fail to perform that diligence.
You wrote all of that without realizing I actually came around to your side of things.
I am not hurt, though my heart did cool down when your self righteousness heated up,) and I clearly put some humor into the reply, and to this one.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On October 15 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it. I didn’t see this because my post put me on a new page but sources? My understanding was that peers essentially define acceptable conduct. If you say racist shit around your peers and they laugh then you’ll keep doing it, if they call you an asshole you’ll stop. If your mom Facebook group tells you daily that mother’s who vaccinate don’t care about their children then you’ll start repeating it. We’re social creatures, not rational islands. Basically everyone in the US South today opposes slavery, but most people 200 years ago were fine with it. We’re not intrinsically better people, we’re in a better environment. But we’re still fine with children in Southeast Asia making our clothes in factories with no fire escapes because that’s just capitalism, it’s normal, all our friends like capitalism. I would absolutely stop eating meat if people gave me shit for it daily, it’s why I eat beef but not puppies. If your peers call you out for repeating garbage you’ll stop doing it. If your peers just blindly retweet everything then you will too. What am I missing?
You are missing that people are much more likely to reject messages from people they don't like, they are far more likely to accept a message from someone that they do like, and that people are much more likely to like someone that tells them kind words than someone that insults them. For me, it's literally a 'tactic' that I employ rather frequently - if I am talking with someone and I want them to change their behavior, I will start out by giving them a compliment before I tell them how to improve, because this small gesture makes them pay far more attention to the following sequence of words.
Starting out by calling someone an idiot accomplishes the opposite. Most people don't think they are idiots - even if they are idiots. By you stating that they are an idiot, they think 'well, he's clearly wrong about this, so why would he be right about the other things he's saying'. Not only that, but it also makes them hostile.
(In practice, say I'm talking to an unruly teenager or whatever, I might go, 'you know, normally, I think you're a really reasonable guy. But right now, in this conflict, you're the one being unreasonable'. This has a far greater success rate than saying anything akin to 'you're being an idiot, and this is why'.)
I don't really have 'sources' (I've read a whole lot of pedagogical literature, but almost all of it Norwegian, the principles are fairly universal though), but this is something that is continuously stressed when you study pedagogics. Shaming your students and making them feel stupid is one of the biggest absolutely no do not do this. Anyone studying to be a teacher in Norway thinking shaming is a good pedagogical method will end up with a 'not fit for the job'. Now, I think I'm a very good teacher - but I've certainly made a lot of mistakes, too.
Evaluating myself, I think the biggest 'mistake' I've done as a teacher was that I accidentally laughed when a high school student of mine asked 'Is Norway part of Europe'. (I was dumbfounded by a high school student not knowing that / thought it was a joke. (If anyone noticed, I changed the question asked to an equally dumb question so that it won't be possible for any of my students who somehow read my posts on tl, which is within the realm of possibility, to identify said student.  ) Completely ruined my relationship with her, and made her entirely indifferent to all my future classes. I apologized, but it didn't really matter - I couldn't undo the 'I think you're stupid for not knowing this' impression I left her with.
(To be fair - while I described the principles as fairly universal, there are also cultural differences, and differences based on what level/age people are at, and it's possible to give people much harsher feedback if you couple it with affection and humor. Not to mention that there are individual differences. You're not going to have a hard time finding anecdotal evidence to back up the notion that shaming works, but as a professional, I absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree with it as a 'method'. It's lazy, and for every instance you can find where it 'works', you could have achieved the same without shaming, and there are multiple instances of instead pushing people away from any future message you want to convey to them.)
|
Norway28561 Posts
On October 15 2021 01:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it. It’s absolutely effective, the key difference is the social framework from which the shaming emanates and via what mechanisms it is instilled. As a direct method for convincing people who are largely operating within socially accepted frameworks, yes it is bloody awful. If the frameworks shift thus that an individual is massively outside of them, then they have to recalibrate a bit. Most people who do shitty things on this Earth do so with a genuine belief that they’re doing nothing wrong, one which society largely mirrors so of course shame is a useless correctional mechanism there.
A parent installing some degree of shame in their kid after their kid does something the kid knows is wrong can work - assuming the parent is a good parent whom the kid has respect for and an otherwise loving relationship towards. But that's not really 'peer shame'.
Further, I only went after Kwark's second post. I thought he was rude in the first one too - but there, it was considerably more understandable and more warranted. The second post however was in response to Husyelt starting his post with 'I'm willing to change my mind' - which is about as good as it gets on an internet forum.
|
On October 15 2021 02:01 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:34 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. You don’t have to talk down to someone to make a convincing argument. Had I not been the better and more intelligent person here, I might have dismissed you outright. Instead I looked at your article that you googled, (probably quickly and without drinking coffee,) and found it to be ok, if a bit dull. I prefer prettier pictures and graphs like this one. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprintsHumor aside, I didn’t realize wind had made this much ground in the past decade. It’s pretty close to solar and nuclear now. I still have a few other articles to read now. I only brought up the refining aspect of natural gas to highlight the simplicity of it. Not that it’s better than any other type of energy. Dismissing it would only hurt you, you’re the one repeating stupid lies without thinking about them. If you went outside with your underwear on your head and I pointed it out and laughed at you would you keep it there to avoid feeling like you were validating my mockery? It’d just make you continue to be the fool. I’m absolutely serious, you (and a lot of other people all over the political spectrum) need to start being more skeptical about shit you read in a bubble online. And you need to realize what an idiot you’ve been whenever you fail to perform that diligence. You wrote all of that without realizing I actually came around to your side of things. I am not hurt, though my heart did cool down when your self righteousness heated up,) and I clearly put some humor into the reply, and to this one.
He realized, Kwark just refuses to give credit for people figuring out later what everybody else already knew. It was the same in USPMT when some Trump supporters came around to disliking him in 2017, Kwark was pretty vocal they shouldn’t get any praise for that.
I like Kwark but he is extremely Kwark, always has been. I’m more sympathetic to people who realize they were in the wrong, I would have said/believed a lot of stuff a decade ago that I’d be ashamed of now, and I probably believe some stuff now I’ll be embarrassed by later. Maybe “general strike” is just the grift that appeals to my sensibilities the way the Mueller cult appealed to Doodsmack and launching trash into the Sun appeals to Mohdoo. All you can do is try to be a bit more skeptical and do your homework, you know?
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 15 2021 02:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it. I didn’t see this because my post put me on a new page but sources? My understanding was that peers essentially define acceptable conduct. If you say racist shit around your peers and they laugh then you’ll keep doing it, if they call you an asshole you’ll stop. If your mom Facebook group tells you daily that mother’s who vaccinate don’t care about their children then you’ll start repeating it. We’re social creatures, not rational islands. Basically everyone in the US South today opposes slavery, but most people 200 years ago were fine with it. We’re not intrinsically better people, we’re in a better environment. But we’re still fine with children in Southeast Asia making our clothes in factories with no fire escapes because that’s just capitalism, it’s normal, all our friends like capitalism. I would absolutely stop eating meat if people gave me shit for it daily, it’s why I eat beef but not puppies. If your peers call you out for repeating garbage you’ll stop doing it. If your peers just blindly retweet everything then you will too. What am I missing? You are missing that people are much more likely to reject messages from people they don't like, they are far more likely to accept a message from someone that they do like, and that people are much more likely to like someone that tells them kind words than someone that insults them. For me, it's literally a 'tactic' that I employ rather frequently - if I am talking with someone and I want them to change their behavior, I will start out by giving them a compliment before I tell them how to improve, because this small gesture makes them pay far more attention to the following sequence of words. Starting out by calling someone an idiot accomplishes the opposite. Most people don't think they are idiots - even if they are idiots. By you stating that they are an idiot, they think 'well, he's clearly wrong about this, so why would he be right about the other things he's saying'. Not only that, but it also makes them hostile. (In practice, say I'm talking to an unruly teenager or whatever, I might go, 'you know, normally, I think you're a really reasonable guy. But right now, in this conflict, you're the one being unreasonable'. This has a far greater success rate than saying anything akin to 'you're being an idiot, and this is why'.) I don't really have 'sources' (I've read a whole lot of pedagogical literature, but almost all of it Norwegian, the principles are fairly universal though), but this is something that is continuously stressed when you study pedagogics. Shaming your students and making them feel stupid is one of the biggest absolutely no do not do this. Anyone studying to be a teacher in Norway thinking shaming is a good pedagogical method will end up with a 'not fit for the job'. Now, I think I'm a very good teacher - but I've certainly made a lot of mistakes, too. Evaluating myself, I think the biggest 'mistake' I've done as a teacher was that I accidentally laughed when a high school student of mine asked 'Is Norway part of Europe'. (I was dumbfounded by a high school student not knowing that / thought it was a joke. (If anyone noticed, I changed the question asked to an equally dumb question so that it won't be possible for any of my students who somehow read my posts on tl, which is within the realm of possibility, to identify said student. ) Completely ruined my relationship with her, and made her entirely indifferent to all my future classes. I apologized, but it didn't really matter - I couldn't undo the 'I think you're stupid for not knowing this' impression I left her with. (To be fair - while I described the principles as fairly universal, there are also cultural differences, and differences based on what level/age people are at, and it's possible to give people much harsher feedback if you couple it with affection and humor. Not to mention that there are individual differences. You're not going to have a hard time finding anecdotal evidence to back up the notion that shaming works, but as a professional, I absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree with it as a 'method'. It's lazy, and for every instance you can find where it 'works', you could have achieved the same without shaming, and there are multiple instances of instead pushing people away from any future message you want to convey to them.)
I’d like to clarify that I don’t think shame is a useful learning tool with students and I would disagree with a teacher humiliating and ridiculing children. Your approach is absolutely the best one for that. But you’re not a peer of students, you cannot do peer ridicule, only authority ridicule, and that’s very different. Children have unformed senses of self, if you tell a child they’re an idiot enough times they’ll end up believing you which is very far from the goal. Adults have the ability to go “I don’t think I’m an idiot/bad person/racist/whatever” and correct the behaviour that is causing the misalignment of their peer feedback and sense of self.
Do you see the issue with manually correcting every lie told by the internet outrage engines and demagogues? It’s neither possible nor practical which is in part why they do it. It’s a gish gallop strategy. You can’t just refute specific things, they need to be refuted in a way that makes the individual understand their failing in trusting such a bad source and not applying common sense.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On October 15 2021 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 02:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 15 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:On October 15 2021 00:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it. I didn’t see this because my post put me on a new page but sources? My understanding was that peers essentially define acceptable conduct. If you say racist shit around your peers and they laugh then you’ll keep doing it, if they call you an asshole you’ll stop. If your mom Facebook group tells you daily that mother’s who vaccinate don’t care about their children then you’ll start repeating it. We’re social creatures, not rational islands. Basically everyone in the US South today opposes slavery, but most people 200 years ago were fine with it. We’re not intrinsically better people, we’re in a better environment. But we’re still fine with children in Southeast Asia making our clothes in factories with no fire escapes because that’s just capitalism, it’s normal, all our friends like capitalism. I would absolutely stop eating meat if people gave me shit for it daily, it’s why I eat beef but not puppies. If your peers call you out for repeating garbage you’ll stop doing it. If your peers just blindly retweet everything then you will too. What am I missing? You are missing that people are much more likely to reject messages from people they don't like, they are far more likely to accept a message from someone that they do like, and that people are much more likely to like someone that tells them kind words than someone that insults them. For me, it's literally a 'tactic' that I employ rather frequently - if I am talking with someone and I want them to change their behavior, I will start out by giving them a compliment before I tell them how to improve, because this small gesture makes them pay far more attention to the following sequence of words. Starting out by calling someone an idiot accomplishes the opposite. Most people don't think they are idiots - even if they are idiots. By you stating that they are an idiot, they think 'well, he's clearly wrong about this, so why would he be right about the other things he's saying'. Not only that, but it also makes them hostile. (In practice, say I'm talking to an unruly teenager or whatever, I might go, 'you know, normally, I think you're a really reasonable guy. But right now, in this conflict, you're the one being unreasonable'. This has a far greater success rate than saying anything akin to 'you're being an idiot, and this is why'.) I don't really have 'sources' (I've read a whole lot of pedagogical literature, but almost all of it Norwegian, the principles are fairly universal though), but this is something that is continuously stressed when you study pedagogics. Shaming your students and making them feel stupid is one of the biggest absolutely no do not do this. Anyone studying to be a teacher in Norway thinking shaming is a good pedagogical method will end up with a 'not fit for the job'. Now, I think I'm a very good teacher - but I've certainly made a lot of mistakes, too. Evaluating myself, I think the biggest 'mistake' I've done as a teacher was that I accidentally laughed when a high school student of mine asked 'Is Norway part of Europe'. (I was dumbfounded by a high school student not knowing that / thought it was a joke. (If anyone noticed, I changed the question asked to an equally dumb question so that it won't be possible for any of my students who somehow read my posts on tl, which is within the realm of possibility, to identify said student. ) Completely ruined my relationship with her, and made her entirely indifferent to all my future classes. I apologized, but it didn't really matter - I couldn't undo the 'I think you're stupid for not knowing this' impression I left her with. (To be fair - while I described the principles as fairly universal, there are also cultural differences, and differences based on what level/age people are at, and it's possible to give people much harsher feedback if you couple it with affection and humor. Not to mention that there are individual differences. You're not going to have a hard time finding anecdotal evidence to back up the notion that shaming works, but as a professional, I absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree with it as a 'method'. It's lazy, and for every instance you can find where it 'works', you could have achieved the same without shaming, and there are multiple instances of instead pushing people away from any future message you want to convey to them.) I’d like to clarify that I don’t think shame is a useful learning tool with students and I would disagree with a teacher humiliating and ridiculing children. Your approach is absolutely the best one for that. But you’re not a peer of students, you cannot do peer ridicule, only authority ridicule, and that’s very different. Children have unformed senses of self, if you tell a child they’re an idiot enough times they’ll end up believing you which is very far from the goal. Adults have the ability to go “I don’t think I’m an idiot/bad person/racist/whatever” and correct the behaviour that is causing the misalignment of their peer feedback and sense of self. Do you see the issue with manually correcting every lie told by the internet outrage engines and demagogues? It’s neither possible nor practical which is in part why they do it. It’s a gish gallop strategy. You can’t just refute specific things, they need to be refuted in a way that makes the individual understand their failing in trusting such a bad source and not applying common sense.
While adults theoretically have that ability, most don't do it, and if they do it, it's almost never because 'random person x' said they were an idiot - it's because a person they held in deep respect did it. If one of your best friends states something racist, calling him out on that in a way that might make him feel ashamed has a reasonable chance of success, but you have nearly 0 chance of success with the same method with a person you don't have an established positive relation with.
I certainly understand why people respond with ridicule or shame and why they don't bother with more pedagogically sound approaches to convincing people. For one, the latter takes more time. Secondly, we're all human. I think I'm significantly more aware of this stuff than most people are, but I also say things I shouldn't say. My biggest issue is with thinking it is in any way altruistic - and especially towards the person you are responding to. (For example, you can argue that your response made sense from a 'let's educate other people who read this thread, so they understand that what was just posted is considered idiotic by me and thus most likely by extension also by some other people'.) In my opinion, shaming people is lazy, and a reflection of some negative personality traits (to be clear, I think these negative personality traits are present in almost all people, myself included, so this isn't meant as an insult) that we should try not to express. Finally - there's a big difference between doing it after negative behavior (person said something stupid) and doing it after positive behavior (person acknowledged that maybe his stupid statement was wrong, and he's willing to change his mind).
|
|
|
You guys can just say that kwark likes bullying people. He's never been shy about hurting people for his own enjoyment and the pursuit of any argument he's having.
|
I stated my opinion and you’re saying I might as well state your opinion but I don’t think my opinion and your opinion are the same opinion? Anyway I think this is more of a feedback thread conversation (to the extent it needs to happen at all, that is).
|
|
|
Every human only has a very small amount of knowledge on a small amount of things and there is infinitely many things they are not knowledgeable about. The exception is Kwark who is infinitely knowledgeable about everything so it's hard for him to sympathize with someone that doesn't know something that he knows. You guys are unfairly accusing Kwark of bullying when really he is just cursed by his super-genius intellect.
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On October 16 2021 07:24 BlackJack wrote:
Every human only has a very small amount of knowledge on a small amount of things and there is infinitely many things they are not knowledgeable about. The exception is Kwark who is infinitely knowledgeable about everything so it's hard for him to sympathize with someone that doesn't know something that he knows. You guys are unfairly accusing Kwark of bullying when really he is just cursed by his super-genius intellect.
In theory a free man but really shackled within a prison of his own genius, I don’t envy him his fate. Do personally greatly enjoy Kwarkposting myself mind don’t want to pile on.
@Drone, good post man, some good for thought there.
How would you consider that on more of a macro level? Where there’s some pre-existing power dynamic or a personal relationship there’s something to work with in pulling rank so to speak. Doesn’t have to be something as strong as a parental or teacher relationship, even something as small in the wider scheme of things as being a respected forum veteran (which I aspire to be one day) can have some weight.
In the absence of some hook though it seems exceedingly difficult to engage in some earnest discourse to the extent it changes someone’s mind.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 16 2021 07:24 BlackJack wrote:
Every human only has a very small amount of knowledge on a small amount of things and there is infinitely many things they are not knowledgeable about. The exception is Kwark who is infinitely knowledgeable about everything so it's hard for him to sympathize with someone that doesn't know something that he knows. You guys are unfairly accusing Kwark of bullying when really he is just cursed by his super-genius intellect.
You don’t need to know everything to know not trust obvious misinformation on social media. There’s plenty that I know nothing about but I don’t generally post about that stuff because I know nothing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
