|
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 February 20 2023 07:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 07:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time. I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities. Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here. What evidence do you have about you being in the minority? Seems like a pretty unfounded accusation and a very inflammatory one. You're really having to stoop pretty low, sign if no actual good arguements?
My evidence is the large group of people that have said anything that PV puts out should just be ignored (large relative to total people that have posted on PV). Have you not been following the conversation and do you really need me to go back and get quotes?
|
|
|
On February 20 2023 07:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:20 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time. I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities. Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here. What evidence do you have about you being in the minority? Seems like a pretty unfounded accusation and a very inflammatory one. You're really having to stoop pretty low, sign if no actual good arguements? My evidence is the large group of people that have said anything that PV puts out should just be ignored (large relative to total people that have posted on PV). Have you not been following the conversation and do you really need me to go back and get quotes? I have, saying PV should be ignored does not equal what you said. Assumptions are not facts. People who say Hitler is bad are not saying the autoban is bad. This is not hard stuff, its you avoiding straight forward questions and being a jerk. Edit: I disagree with ChristianS on you not bring disengenious based on the crap like this you pull on the regular.
You actually can't agree that workers should be fired as a result of a PV video while simultaneously arguing that a PV video should be ignored. These two things are mutually exclusive. Struggling with the logic of this is not a good reason to call me disingenuous.
|
|
|
On February 20 2023 07:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:41 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:20 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time. I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities. Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here. What evidence do you have about you being in the minority? Seems like a pretty unfounded accusation and a very inflammatory one. You're really having to stoop pretty low, sign if no actual good arguements? My evidence is the large group of people that have said anything that PV puts out should just be ignored (large relative to total people that have posted on PV). Have you not been following the conversation and do you really need me to go back and get quotes? I have, saying PV should be ignored does not equal what you said. Assumptions are not facts. People who say Hitler is bad are not saying the autoban is bad. This is not hard stuff, its you avoiding straight forward questions and being a jerk. Edit: I disagree with ChristianS on you not bring disengenious based on the crap like this you pull on the regular. You actually can't agree that workers should be fired as a result of a PV video while simultaneously arguing that a PV video should be ignored. These two things are mutually exclusive. Struggling with the logic of this is not a good reason to call me disingenuous. Sure I can, and have. Have you never heard of broken clocks? Would someome who says its not where you should get the time be illogical?
As much as I'd love to go back and forth with you on this, I don't see a reason to shit up this thread because you don't know what "ignore" means. So I'm going to do the prudent thing and ignore you
|
|
|
On February 20 2023 08:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 08:02 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:41 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 07:20 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2023 07:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better.
1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful.
2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences.
If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with.
In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time. I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities. Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here. What evidence do you have about you being in the minority? Seems like a pretty unfounded accusation and a very inflammatory one. You're really having to stoop pretty low, sign if no actual good arguements? My evidence is the large group of people that have said anything that PV puts out should just be ignored (large relative to total people that have posted on PV). Have you not been following the conversation and do you really need me to go back and get quotes? I have, saying PV should be ignored does not equal what you said. Assumptions are not facts. People who say Hitler is bad are not saying the autoban is bad. This is not hard stuff, its you avoiding straight forward questions and being a jerk. Edit: I disagree with ChristianS on you not bring disengenious based on the crap like this you pull on the regular. You actually can't agree that workers should be fired as a result of a PV video while simultaneously arguing that a PV video should be ignored. These two things are mutually exclusive. Struggling with the logic of this is not a good reason to call me disingenuous. Sure I can, and have. Have you never heard of broken clocks? Would someome who says its not where you should get the time be illogical? As much as I'd love to go back and forth with you on this, I don't see a reason to shit up this thread because you don't know what "ignore" means. So I'm going to do the prudent thing and ignore you I ignore broken clocks when Im looking for the time. They make you think because they are right twice a day. We are very different people.
“They make you think” lmao
|
|
|
On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. I don't think I understand BJ's point the same way you do. His initial complaint (carried to multiple threads over multiple weeks) was basically "the media is censoring this PV video by not really covering it." You're right about 1), he doesn't actually think PV is a trustworthy source, he just wants the media to write articles following up on PV's claims about Pfizer. If they show that every PV claim is bullshit, great, he's happy with that, but he wants them to go show that. So it's not "Sure, PV is unreliable, but sometimes they kind of have a point!" It's "Sure, PV is unreliable, but I'd still like someone to actually do the work of showing they're full of shit!" Thing is, I'm sympathetic to that (to a point). I'm not a huge fan of deciding someone is so morally bankrupt that I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears when they talk – if they have a claim to make, and evidence to support it, I can hear them out even if I think they're deceitful, untrustworthy, etc. I'm not evaluating it on the strength of their character, I'm evaluating it on the strength of the evidence. I have limited time, of course, and I don't owe them my attention, but I still think it's a good thing in general for someone to hear out any given crackpot and do the work of showing why they're wrong (or, maybe, where they kind of have a point!). But I went back and forth with him kind of a lot on this recently, and the problem is, either PV's most recent video doesn't have any allegations against Pfizer that are really fact-checkable, or at least BJ is unwilling to share a single one. I haven't watched the video, but I read a summary and thought it sounded mostly like the sorts of claims that are virtually impossible to disprove, but without any meaninful proof being offered there was absolutely no reason to believe them. I've encouraged BJ to provide counterexamples, and he had no interest in doing so. Here's where I might be more sympathetic to DPB than you on this subject: BJ has brought this PV thing up so many times, always with this pugnacious tone, and is pretty consistently defensive of PV while being unwilling to, as I repeatedly suggested, point to specific allegations he'd like investigated and debunked. Is it totally unreasonable to look at that and conclude that the "I agree PV is unreliable" thing is just rhetorical cover? I mean, PV videos are essentially propaganda, and if you want to maximize the effect of propaganda you would probably want to keep people talking about it as long as possible while muddying the water as much as possible on any discussion of the actual truth value of it. Imagine the following (not a real quote, but a hypothetical): Don't you think this video is interesting? Shouldn't people be talking about it more? Oh, of course I don't know if it's true or not. What specific claims do I think are so 'interesting'? Oh, I dunno, the whole thing really! Listen, I'm just like you! I'm a skeptical viewer, and we can't just trust the video's claims as-is. But if traditional information sources aren't talking about this, doesn't that mean they're just as untrustworthy? Anyway, everyone should definitely watch the video in its entirety and discuss it everywhere they can. Hey, be skeptical! But be just as skeptical of anyone telling you it's not true, ya know? I'm all for charitable interpretation, and for the record I don't think BJ is arguing in bad faith. But if you get enough rhetoric like the above, at some point aren't we being a bit dense to take it at face value? You can't say for certain that someone saying something like the above is intentionally trying to propagandize, obfuscate, and distort, but you can, at least, say they're arguing exactly like someone would if they were trying to propagandize, obfuscate, and distort. At which point I think a reasonable response might be "This is functionally indistingushable from propaganda, and the best response to propaganda is to not give it oxygen." In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas Show nested quote +until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time.
I was hoping yall would, but here we are with expected company. It's hard to do anything other than laugh at the absurdity in order to push away the sadness of it all at this point.
|
Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge.
New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now."
https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N
|
On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. Show nested quote +New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N
With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark.
I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations (EDIT: and the existing/ongoing related atrocities [Ex. the savage barbarity of over 100 years of resource extraction from the DRC] they subsidize/benefit from/profit off of)
|
On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations
1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons.
1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars.
2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.)
|
On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.)
I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know.
1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others.
2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example).
|
On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example).
I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)?
Could you also elaborate on why/how socialism would fix this problem?
I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you used the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window?
|
|
|
On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window?
My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit.
In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded.
To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare.
The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism.
To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human.
|
On February 20 2023 07:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time. I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities. Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here.
Yeah, that was what, 2008? It’s been a minute, my recollection is that the video made it seem like the workers there were advising people on how to break the law without getting caught. What actually happened in full context was that the workers were explicitly refusing to break the law on behalf of the undercover couple.
But, on the other hand, they also seemed primarily concerned with how to fill out the paperwork, rather than intervening to get this girl out of what was clearly a very bad situation. I suppose “call the cops” is the response we’re supposed to think they should have done? Is that the outrage? It’s been 15 years, I only remember it so well.
There’s a potentially interesting alternate reality where these were undercover videos meant to show the cold heartlessness of the American healthcare system. Lots of videos of overworked doctors and nurses seeming actively disinterested in people’s heartbreaking problems, encouraging courses of care with no warning or knowledge that they would condemn people to years of addiction and debt. Next to all of that, I’m not really that outraged by a healthcare worker seeing an underage girl who’s been impregnated by a 31-year-old and thinks “I’m not a cop, and involving the cops is likely to make this girl’s life even worse. It’s just my job to fill out the paperwork.”
|
On February 20 2023 11:33 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest impact would be designing cities for people instead of cars and making mass improvements in public transport, or better yet design it for bikes like Copenhagen is. Whether the cars are gas or electric you have many environmental problems not only from the manufacturing, powering and upkeep, but the massive roads needed and upkeep on them. The whole suberbia idea was a horrible one for the enviroment and quality of life for people overall.
Yeah my state (New Jersey - the most densely populated state) could probably benefit greatly from overhauling transportation, and not just within cities. I think the most common argument I hear for keeping cars and not wanting to center one's life around public transportation (especially in suburban/rural areas) is the freedom one has to drive wherever they need to go, whenever they need to go there, because in our current environment, that's our only option. I can leave for work or for errands on my own schedule, without needing to abide by bus or train schedules (and god forbid those public transportation alternatives aren't running on time); I don't need to live within walking/bicycling distance of my destinations or bus/train stops; I can complete multiple errands (food shopping, going to a mall, etc.) and store everything in my car instead of holding everything; etc.
It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
*I think of how school buses stop every few blocks in a suburban/rural area - literally an additional stop every 1-2 minutes - to pick up and drop off children, and I wonder if it needs to be that close to one's house for an American adult to consider it a viable option as well. If we're too lazy to walk a few blocks to a bus/train station, or if we're in a rush, or if the public transportation schedule doesn't match our schedule, or if it's terrible weather... then either we need to drive to the station and hope that parking exists, or pay for an Uber to drop us off... in which case, it might be more convenient for some people to just take their own car.
|
On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human.
The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it).
When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans?
To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome.
It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
