EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 829
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2018 03:55 Wegandi wrote: The climate change doomsdayism/ers are the modern day Malthusians. There's always some contemporary existential threat to humanity that you can beat your chest about very confidently, with the air of science, even. Of course, the modelling predictions have been wildly wrong, but that doesn't matter. Use it to advance whatever ideology - Agenda 21, veganism, socialism, etc. Malthusian-look-a-likes are always so predictable that they're the ones with the answer - just put them in charge. I'm sure the cure isn't worse than the diagnosis.... This post has to be one of the best self owns I’ve seen in a while. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28795 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote: This post has to be one of the best self owns I’ve seen in a while. you should explain why. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If people with Agendas are bad, then the speaker is among those people and also bad. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
EDIT: I said something that accomplishes nothing because I was truly astounded by what I read. I have decided otherwise. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:12 Plansix wrote: If people with Agendas are bad, then the speaker is among those people and also bad. Generally, people yelling about doomsday and then saying, I have the answer, trust me, it's probably not a good idea. Of course, you'd miss this obvious implication of my post. I'm fairly confident that as long as the cure involves sweeping standard of living reductions that the alarmism will continue to live at the fringe. Anyways, if we look at the facts on a global level since the 1980s, humanity is improving at a break-neck pace, and the illiteracy on this issue by the general public is most manifest in the climate change doomsdayism. https://www.economist.com/international/2017/03/30/the-world-has-made-great-progress-in-eradicating-extreme-poverty | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8255 Posts
On October 10 2018 03:55 Wegandi wrote: The climate change doomsdayism/ers are the modern day Malthusians. There's always some contemporary existential threat to humanity that you can beat your chest about very confidently, with the air of science, even. Of course, the modelling predictions have been wildly wrong, but that doesn't matter. Use it to advance whatever ideology - Agenda 21, veganism, socialism, etc. Malthusian-look-a-likes are always so predictable that they're the ones with the answer - just put them in charge. I'm sure the cure isn't worse than the diagnosis.... Except, you know, one is based on a disproven hypothesis while the other is based on a repeatedly proven theories based on easily repeatable experiments... I just can't fathom how people can ever go "Yes, I know 97% of all scientists agree on this one thing, but I'd rather listen to these other 3%". If 97 doctors told you that you had cancer, and 3 didn't, would you believe the 3? P.S: Modelling predictions have not been "wildly wrong". Within acceptable variations they have been pretty much spot on for the last 40 years. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12454 Posts
On October 10 2018 03:55 Wegandi wrote: The climate change doomsdayism/ers are the modern day Malthusians. There's always some contemporary existential threat to humanity that you can beat your chest about very confidently, with the air of science, even. Of course, the modelling predictions have been wildly wrong, but that doesn't matter. Use it to advance whatever ideology - Agenda 21, veganism, socialism, etc. Malthusian-look-a-likes are always so predictable that they're the ones with the answer - just put them in charge. I'm sure the cure isn't worse than the diagnosis.... You can easily make an argument against malthusianism: it incorrectly places the blame of scarcity on overpopulation rather than distribution. In other words, it blames the poor for existing without resources, rather than the rich for hoarding said resources. All you have to do to discredit this theory is show that the world isn't factually overpopulated, and that's not very hard to do. When it comes to climate change "doomsdayism" (a term that clearly denotes an agenda on your part, for the record), it's not so easy to debunk this. At least not to me. Maybe you can back up your comparison with an equally easy debunking of climate change consequences. Also yeah, I plan to use this to advance socialism, you have uncovered my secret plan. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:24 Wegandi wrote: Generally, people yelling about doomsday and then saying, I have the answer, trust me, it's probably not a good idea. Of course, you'd miss this obvious implication of my post. I'm fairly confident that as long as the cure involves sweeping standard of living reductions that the alarmism will continue to live at the fringe. Anyways, if we look at the facts on a global level since the 1980s, humanity is improving at a break-neck pace, and the illiteracy on this issue by the general public is most manifest in the climate change doomsdayism. https://www.economist.com/international/2017/03/30/the-world-has-made-great-progress-in-eradicating-extreme-poverty So you are alarmist about your so called Climate Change Alarmist? This is the very definition of a political Agenda. A phrase I personally hate because it implies some nefarious intent behind advocating a viewpoint, while immunizing the speaker the same accusations. As you clearly stated, you have a political belief that combating climate change will come with the cost of reduced standard of living for the entire globe and a halt to “progress”. An alarmist stance, in my opinion. And one based on political stand point that humanity’s progress can be traced on some linear scale, with the western nations being at the end of that scale of human achievement they created. Combating climate change does and would not create a stall in human achievement. But it would upset the status quo of the last 50-60 years of our economic infrastructure. From power production to transportation. And since there are entrenched economic players that do not want this status quo upset, we see opposition to it. Complete with wild claims that developing technology that could power entire cities with sunlight alone is some step backwards for humanity. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote: Except, you know, one is based on a disproven hypothesis while the other is based on a repeatedly proven theories based on easily repeatable experiments... I just can't fathom how people can ever go "Yes, I know 97% of all scientists agree on this one thing, but I'd rather listen to these other 3%". If 97 doctors told you that you had cancer, and 3 didn't, would you believe the 3? P.S: Modelling predictions have not been "wildly wrong". Within acceptable variations they have been pretty much spot on for the last 40 years. Plus, even if those 97 doctors are wrong and you don't have cancer, it doesn't mean they have some ulterior motive to deceive you into thinking you do. More likely that they made a conservative call based on the data, their training, past experience, and the risk/benefit analysis of treating a false positive over missing a true positive. This attitude of conspiratorial skepticism has poisoned the discussion and made it impossible for both sides to engage on a broad range of topics, due to one side or the other explaining away logic and empirical data with the assumption that these things are corrupted by bad actors (anti-vaxxers being another broad category where no amount of good science will sway their opinions). I'm not naive enough to say that there aren't bad actors trying to push an agenda, but to assume that the majority on either side behaves this way is counterproductive. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12454 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:29 farvacola wrote: Are you telling me that global, sweeping problems might lend themselves to collectivist solutions proposed by folks in favor of collective action? Egads, sounds like the stuff of conspiracy for sure. This headline of "Socialist thinks socialism would help in this problematic situation created by capitalism" isn't as punchy as I thought it was :/ | ||
|
rickxross
United States33 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:44 Sermokala wrote: Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her. Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black) Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign. Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own) I disagree with Amy Klobuchar being an easy win candidate after seeing 2016 and how the electorate were prepared to believe the worst of Hillary and the best of Trump. Hillary was a middle class midwestern woman from Arkansas who stood by her unfaithful husband and was a sunday school teacher, and Trump was a coastal elite serial womanizer born with a silver spoon in his mouth from New York City. It's sad, but I think that a safe woman candidate will be both vulnerable to the type of smears used against Hillary and unable to energize the base that won Obama the presidency. I think the candidate needs to have charisma and not be safe. Voters don't want safe. Like p6 says, they want to punch DC, hard. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote: Except, you know, one is based on a disproven hypothesis while the other is based on a repeatedly proven theories based on easily repeatable experiments... I just can't fathom how people can ever go "Yes, I know 97% of all scientists agree on this one thing, but I'd rather listen to these other 3%". If 97 doctors told you that you had cancer, and 3 didn't, would you believe the 3? P.S: Modelling predictions have not been "wildly wrong". Within acceptable variations they have been pretty much spot on for the last 40 years. math is hard User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
Time to conjoure up an OP, mods! Edit: oh, there is climate change discussion going on in the Europe politics thread too! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:56 rickxross wrote: I disagree with Amy Klobuchar being an easy win candidate after seeing 2016 and how the electorate were prepared to believe the worst of Hillary and the best of Trump. Hillary was a middle class midwestern woman from Arkansas who stood by her unfaithful husband and was a sunday school teacher, and Trump was a coastal elite serial womanizer born with a silver spoon in his mouth from New York City. It's sad, but I think that a safe woman candidate will be both vulnerable to the type of smears used against Hillary and unable to energize the base that won Obama the presidency. I think the candidate needs to have charisma and not be safe. Voters don't want safe. Like p6 says, they want to punch DC, hard. On top of this, I would also say that voters don’t know what they want once people are in office. They want big changes to DC, but also don’t want things to change that much in their lives. They want improvements to the services they like, but don’t like the sound of tax increases. They want to end corruption, but don’t like investigations into politicians they like. Apparently they like the ACA now, but voted for people that tried to destroy it for 8 years going. They want to fight an economic war with China, but also don’t want China’s economy to suffer because that will hurt the US economy. The voters want leadership and in the absence of that, they buy whatever bullshit Trump is peddling. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 10 2018 04:56 rickxross wrote: Hillary was a middle class midwestern woman from Arkansas who stood by her unfaithful husband and was a sunday school teacher, and Trump was a coastal elite serial womanizer born with a silver spoon in his mouth from New York City. It's sad, but I think that a safe woman candidate will be both vulnerable to the type of smears used against Hillary and unable to energize the base that won Obama the presidency. I'm sorry but that's one of the most dishonest representations of Hillary imaginable. She was never some scrappy nobody from a podunk town. On October 10 2018 04:49 Nebuchad wrote: This headline of "Socialist thinks socialism would help in this problematic situation created by capitalism" isn't as punchy as I thought it was :/ Capitalism didn't cause this; neoliberalism did. The differences between the two philosophies are appreciable and irreconcilable. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 10 2018 05:33 Slydie wrote: Is this where a dedicated climate change thread should be made? It clutters this thread too much, and is not really specific to the US. I know I am partly to blame. Time to conjoure up an OP, mods! Edit: oh, there is climate change discussion going on in the Europe politics thread too! I suggest people give this thread a chance before engaging in climate change yes /no /idc discussions. All you need to do is read the op. It's a long ass post. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 10 2018 05:57 CosmicSpiral wrote: I'm sorry but that's one of the most dishonest representations of Hillary imaginable. She was never some scrappy nobody from a podunk town. It isn’t factually inaccurate, it does omit the majority of Clinton’s political career. Though I would also say that the Republican fueled mythos around the Clintons is equally disingenuous. I find it weird that the Senate Republicans seem to operate like Bill Clinton just left office and Hilary could run for election at any moment. And with his charitable depiction of Clinton in mind, his characterization of Trump is generous as well. He leaves out all the scummy real estate deals and tax fraud. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12454 Posts
On October 10 2018 05:57 CosmicSpiral wrote: Capitalism didn't cause this; neoliberalism did. The differences between the two philosophies are appreciable and irreconcilable. Neoliberalism is a logical consequence of capitalism. If you create a wealthy and powerful ruling class and tell them that the goal is to increase their profit, it is logical that they will favor a strand of capitalism that gives them even more money and power. And because of the power that they already hold thanks to being the ruling class, it is logical that neoliberalism becomes the most influential capitalist ideology. We can of course influence capitalism using other economic ideologies, mainly socialism and fascism, without moving away from capitalism entirely. My favourite is socialism =). But without those external influences I don't see how a capitalist ideology wouldn't naturally tend toward neoliberalism after some amount of time. | ||
| ||
