EPTTL Mafia Community Thread - Page 261
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On February 01 2024 06:53 DarthPunk wrote: As a liberal I can guarantee I am not losing my mind :D Neither are most of my coworkers who are liberal. But while none of the crazy ones will listen to me, they might listen to power if enough of the power (liberals) tell them they have gone too fat. Ok I didn't mean that typo but I am leaving it because, lol, that is not only true of liberals here in America. But yeah, too f a r + Show Spoiler [after edit afterthought] + Like, global warming? Sure, could be our fault, even if it isn't, we are polluting and that is bad no matter how you slice it so let's do that less But saying that all weather is our fault is just ridiculously religious/dogmatically blind. And I am saying that as a religious person (in the old and very basic sense). Kind of like how the KKK isn't openly around anymore, and that happened largely because their own party recognized the extreme error and sat on their heads until they fizzled to the point of not being taken seriously. Those evil bastards used to influence legal policy, you know. | ||
|
Oatsmaster
United States16628 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On February 01 2024 14:16 Alakaslam wrote: Neither are most of my coworkers who are liberal. But while none of the crazy ones will listen to me, they might listen to power if enough of the power (liberals) tell them they have gone too fat. Ok I didn't mean that typo but I am leaving it because, lol, that is not only true of liberals here in America. But yeah, too f a r + Show Spoiler [after edit afterthought] + Like, global warming? Sure, could be our fault, even if it isn't, we are polluting and that is bad no matter how you slice it so let's do that less But saying that all weather is our fault is just ridiculously religious/dogmatically blind. And I am saying that as a religious person (in the old and very basic sense). Kind of like how the KKK isn't openly around anymore, and that happened largely because their own party recognized the extreme error and sat on their heads until they fizzled to the point of not being taken seriously. Those evil bastards used to influence legal policy, you know. It's really funny. I have been reading some stuff about the Texas illegal immigration crisis. These liberal States wanted to take immigrants, apparently until it became a problem...Now they still are in line with them getting into US, just if they stay in Texas.  If we really believe this hogwash. Build trains, not electric cars which still pollute with brake dust and tire runoff. - yes, especially the railway network in US is abysmal. And stop blocking/shutting down clean nuclear. - yes But politicians are invested in solar and wind so they gotta get their bucks, and tesla they like drive their tesla - it's funny in Finland, we do the same, while the benefit of (especially) solar power is so fucking bad. In January we had days when electricity cost over 1€/kwh, and well... with colder than -20°C there is no "just turn off electricity for the time of high prices" unless you want your house to freeze... Our electricity bill was like 150€/day for those couple of days. But hey let's rely on solar and wind!!! | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
We actually export clean energy to other parts of aus. Never have issues with supply stability. We are starting a pumped hydro scheme, which acts as a big battery to smooth out any inconsistent power generation with solar and wind. (Pump water up hill when you have a windy or sunny day and generate hydro electricity to fill in the gaps) In my opinions renewables make sense and are inevitable. You don’t need to constantly dig shit out of the ground, burn it and deal with waste. Any issues are technological problems to be solved by smart engineers and not political problems. I really don’t understand how shit like renewables and climate change became politicised, when it’s just science/tech identifying a problem and trying to solve it. As for the electric car vs trains thing. I agree more trains and public transport would be good(something I noticed worked well in eu) but internal combustion engines have a inevitable expiry date, there is only so much oil in they ground and it is a matter of time until it runs out. We are always going to need cars and trucks. While there are issues with ev (basically lithium mining for batteries) again it is a tech solution to a real problem, so why is it made political? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
On February 02 2024 06:13 marvellosity wrote: It’s a grim day in hell when I’m riding with DP <3 | ||
|
TankTopTiger
509 Posts
Also people who believe in climate change are not a monolith. For example, DP and I both believe in climate change but he's big on renewables while I favour nuclear (renewables are fine but are only viable given specific geographic advantages like we have in Tasmania). I don't care about electric cars. I don't even care about the mass extinctions beyond how they affect humans. Propaganda is not the shark it is the ocean. We are all submerged in it and our views all reek of it. It's inescapable. Only through interfacing with other sources of information can you improve your worldview. Your media telling you that the other media is bad is no good (obviously). Leftists are gross at times, but that's got nothing to do with climate science (IMO most leftists don't know what they're talking about, they're just by and large epistemically lucky). Fuck culture war bullshit. This is a (if I were to hazard a guess) center-center-left science journalist who's been reporting on climate science for a long time and runs his own channel independent of the MSM. He's a bit obnoxious but he's a very good science educator. He's done a lot of good videos over the years covering the ins and outs of climate science and explaining common misunderstandings. This video covers how the conservative state government in South Australia ended up expanding the renewable power infrastructure after panning it for years because it worked so undeniably well. As DP says, we've been doing similar things in Tasmania. I don't think renewables are one-size-fits-all (like I would argue nuclear is), but there are contextually viable renewable solutions. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
Probably at some point fusion will become energy net-positive and that will be the ultimate solution. Australia is kind of blessed (as usual) with energy options, cause we have great solar (big sunny desert in the middle) Great wind (trade winds and long coastlines) geothermal options, hydro options and we are one of the most geologically stable places on earth so could safely bury nuclear waste for 1000 years. Personally I think a free market approach to energy is best, with some policy incentives to direct the market (a carbon tax, or clean energy tax incentives or similar) and then the best ideas should rise to the top. In general I do think solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are the best options and you implement a suite of these based on the characteristics of a particular location I also think they are efficient and cost effective enough. The real issues are the guarantee of supply, like when there is less power generated, how do we make sure we still have power. Best way to do that is to have some kind of storage for power, so when times are good you save up for when times are less good. South Australia got a huge battery put in the desert by tesla. Tasmania and New South Wales have pumped Hydro schemes. You need to do something, but again its not really politics at this point, its just science and engineering. | ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9857 Posts
On February 02 2024 02:29 raynpelikoneet wrote: It's really funny. I have been reading some stuff about the Texas illegal immigration crisis. These liberal States wanted to take immigrants, apparently until it became a problem...Now they still are in line with them getting into US, just if they stay in Texas. If we really believe this hogwash. Build trains, not electric cars which still pollute with brake dust and tire runoff. - yes, especially the railway network in US is abysmal. And stop blocking/shutting down clean nuclear. - yes But politicians are invested in solar and wind so they gotta get their bucks, and tesla they like drive their tesla - it's funny in Finland, we do the same, while the benefit of (especially) solar power is so fucking bad. In January we had days when electricity cost over 1€/kwh, and well... with colder than -20°C there is no "just turn off electricity for the time of high prices" unless you want your house to freeze... Our electricity bill was like 150€/day for those couple of days. But hey let's rely on solar and wind!!! DP and TTT have great responses for climate change. To try to rebut some of the USA specific things - liberal states are generally pretty pro-immigrant. Blue states like NY/California/NJ have a higher share of immigrants than Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_immigrant_population The people that are the most anti-immigrant in the US tend to be the ones that have little exposure to them beyond the media, which heavily demonizes them. Trains aren't very well-suited for America. Most things are heavily spaced out, and the infrastructure is just built entirely around cars. I live in NJ, which has a pretty decent rail system, so I can take a train to get to NYC/Philadelphia/Washington DC fairly conveniently. NJ is also the most densely populated state in the US though, and in between 2 large cities, so it makes trains more viable. Texas is actually a leader in renewable energy for the US because it's economically beneficial for the state, even though renewable energy goes against conservative ideology. I definitely agree it's not a consistent source of energy for most places and needs to be used in addition to other sources. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
The issues really come with poor/unskilled migrants. Australia doesn't really have a great track record accepting these, but we love skilled workers and graduates. I enjoy the ethnic and cultural diversity that comes alongside 6 decades of immigration in my country. But I guess I would have a problem with just letting anyone come to Australia that wanted to, because a lot of people would want to come, lets face it, and it would impact services, infrastructure etc. | ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9857 Posts
Seems kind of difficult to get there :D | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
On February 02 2024 12:35 Grackaroni wrote: How many poor migrants come to Australia? Seems kind of difficult to get there :D Not many. That's what I was saying. We get people from Indonesia on boats so we have the navy patrolling, and we have a really strong (inhumane?) border policy called mandatory detention, which basically means if you get caught coming to Australia illegally, you will be held offshore on a Pacific Island called Nauru and you will not be allowed to come into Australia, instead they either get sent back, or sent to another country. It's been condemned by the UN and stuff. That's why I say, even though our wealth has been built off the back of 60 years of immigration, we only take, rich skilled and educated migrants. (which we can do because migration to AUS is so popular) No poor or unskilled migrants, so although we like to think of ourselves as progressive in this area, really we are not. | ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9857 Posts
You should join our next game! Should be in March. | ||
|
TankTopTiger
509 Posts
Current day, the economic benefit of bringing in skilled migrants outweighs the cost to the small subsection of the population competing for jobs with them. In general, I think countries that value diversity in culture within the scope of what their infrastructure can handle are better off than more homogenous countries - but it can get pretty complicated. ATM for instance we have a housing crisis in Tasmania, and many people who were born here are going homeless. But this is a failure of governance - I blame the landowning lobbyists, not the migrants seeking opportunity with the means to outcompete our local lower class. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
On February 01 2024 16:57 Oatsmaster wrote: Legitimately gonna forget the other game exists lol The game started | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
| ||
|
Oatsmaster
United States16628 Posts
On February 02 2024 13:14 Grackaroni wrote: You should join our next game! Should be in March. I will try my best to remember lol | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On February 02 2024 09:16 DarthPunk wrote: The issue with nuclear for me is that it just kicks the can down the road in terms of a long term-viable energy solution. IE: you still need to dig shit up from the ground, burn it, and deal with the waste. (and the waste is a big deal for a long time) Probably at some point fusion will become energy net-positive and that will be the ultimate solution. Australia is kind of blessed (as usual) with energy options, cause we have great solar (big sunny desert in the middle) Great wind (trade winds and long coastlines) geothermal options, hydro options and we are one of the most geologically stable places on earth so could safely bury nuclear waste for 1000 years. Personally I think a free market approach to energy is best, with some policy incentives to direct the market (a carbon tax, or clean energy tax incentives or similar) and then the best ideas should rise to the top. In general I do think solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are the best options and you implement a suite of these based on the characteristics of a particular location I also think they are efficient and cost effective enough. The real issues are the guarantee of supply, like when there is less power generated, how do we make sure we still have power. Best way to do that is to have some kind of storage for power, so when times are good you save up for when times are less good. South Australia got a huge battery put in the desert by tesla. Tasmania and New South Wales have pumped Hydro schemes. You need to do something, but again its not really politics at this point, its just science and engineering. Can easily agree with this. The problem is mandating the changes on people who can't afford to do it rather than building the infrastructure with government funds. And/or getting the government funds by taxing the hell out of people the powers that be don't like, rather than tying the loopholes the rich use here. This is how Americans suffer and become blind to what the rest of the world either has or is building and get so partisan it hurts and has to continue to prevent either tyranny. On the one hand you have, basically, a handmaident's tale but worse and more racist and more hopeless as that handmaiden would have North Korean levels of "desire" to do what she was told or face North Korean levels of punishment for the lack On the other hand you have revert to communism "you must now become trans or die by slowly sawing your head off with fishhooks as this is the method proscribed by Allah" monke When really the one ought to be headed toward Japan and the other toward Sweden. + Show Spoiler + Japan for Conservatives, Sweden for Liberals. I hate politics and I am ridiculously political. Yes. I will never not vote and I will never vote more than once per election. I also believe my vote doesn't matter and that it isn't counted and that even if "my candidates" win, effective policy is impossible in the United States due to widespread incompetence, like my own. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On February 02 2024 12:05 Grackaroni wrote: DP and TTT have great responses for climate change. To try to rebut some of the USA specific things - liberal states are generally pretty pro-immigrant. Blue states like NY/California/NJ have a higher share of immigrants than Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_immigrant_population The people that are the most anti-immigrant in the US tend to be the ones that have little exposure to them beyond the media, which heavily demonizes them. Trains aren't very well-suited for America. Most things are heavily spaced out, and the infrastructure is just built entirely around cars. I live in NJ, which has a pretty decent rail system, so I can take a train to get to NYC/Philadelphia/Washington DC fairly conveniently. NJ is also the most densely populated state in the US though, and in between 2 large cities, so it makes trains more viable. Texas is actually a leader in renewable energy for the US because it's economically beneficial for the state, even though renewable energy goes against conservative ideology. I definitely agree it's not a consistent source of energy for most places and needs to be used in addition to other sources. For the bolded. There is no such thing as this. Anywhere an interstate is built, there also a train can be built. For short distance, subways. The United States was the world rail leader for nearly a century. On February 02 2024 12:17 DarthPunk wrote: There are actually real economic arguments for countries to be pro immigration. Australia has not had a recession through multiple global financial crises based basically on using skilled migrants and consistent worker growth to keep a positive GDP figure. The issues really come with poor/unskilled migrants. Australia doesn't really have a great track record accepting these, but we love skilled workers and graduates. I enjoy the ethnic and cultural diversity that comes alongside 6 decades of immigration in my country. But I guess I would have a problem with just letting anyone come to Australia that wanted to, because a lot of people would want to come, lets face it, and it would impact services, infrastructure etc. Most conservatives in the US do not want to halt immigration for the USA. Also from many USA citizens perspective Australia is a conservative paradise, much as Sweden is viewed as a liberal paradise to the inverse. As in, growing up I had ambition to move to AU because I was hyper conservative. Also it is not as if I go to the Palm Springs wind farm and spit into the wind. It just can't be California's only solution. And the mandates are too heavy handed. I love the infrastructure investments, I voted for the HSR. But banning cars in the whole state? No, electric cars cannot serve the farmers or the poor who live in very rural parts of the state. Gas cars barely do, many need Aux tanks to make it work because the nearest station is like 50-70 miles away. | ||
| ||
