On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
There's enough information out there on the ecological crises that ignorance seems like a choice to me for most people. Imo the better analogy would be just the inverse: "Right wingers don't care about climate change because they ignore solar/wind." In many cases that's true.
What? You just yourself said 'I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. '
How is that consistent with 'there's enough information that ignorance seems like a choice' on the matter? Like, ignorance of 'man made climate change being a real problem', I could agree with being a choice, because the data is overwhelmingly supportive that yes, man made climate change is a real problem. But this was about to what degree nuclear is a solution to the problem. (I think it should be part of the solution, but again, I don't know how many % emissions we could cut by 2030 or by 2050 by going with nuclear as a preferred strategy, I don't know to what degree nuclear waste is still a problem, I understand that meltdowns are much less likely than before but I'm not sure it's entirely eliminated as a problem, I don't know to what degree having nuclear power plants and working with this technology contributes to a possible proliferation of nuclear weapons.) While it's possible that all these questions have answers, they're not consistently covered in media, and I'm not sure there's an expert consensus for all of them.
Now, do I wish we had collectively in 1986 after Chernobyl, been like 'guys, this was a serious accident, we must work to ensure this doesn't happen again, but for the love of god let us continue to utilize this rather than coal'? Totally. Does the left of the past deserve some blame for being anti-nuclear? Yes. (But again - I'm guessing the questions I posed in the previous paragraph were less clear / less good for nuclear as an option, back then.)
On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
There's enough information out there on the ecological crises that ignorance seems like a choice to me for most people. Imo the better analogy would be just the inverse: "Right wingers don't care about climate change because they ignore solar/wind." In many cases that's true.
What? You just yourself said 'I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. '
How is that consistent with 'there's enough information that ignorance seems like a choice' on the matter?
He can agree with the existence and the magnitude of the problem but still admit he's not qualified enough to have an opinion on what the best solution would be, no?
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Oct 10 2021 14:01. Posts 3093
On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
There's enough information out there on the ecological crises that ignorance seems like a choice to me for most people. Imo the better analogy would be just the inverse: "Right wingers don't care about climate change because they ignore solar/wind." In many cases that's true.
What? You just yourself said 'I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. '
How is that consistent with 'there's enough information that ignorance seems like a choice' on the matter?
He can agree with the existence and the magnitude of the problem but still admit he's not qualified enough to have an opinion on what the best solution would be, no?
Yes, which is basically my argument.. Not being a strong proponent of nuclear power does not mean you do not care about climate change. I said that the (paraphrased) statement 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not fighting for nuclear power' was stupid, precisely because not knowing enough about the solution to argue how to solve it does not mean you don't care about the problem.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 16:03. Posts 5296
On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
There's enough information out there on the ecological crises that ignorance seems like a choice to me for most people. Imo the better analogy would be just the inverse: "Right wingers don't care about climate change because they ignore solar/wind." In many cases that's true.
What? You just yourself said 'I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. '
How is that consistent with 'there's enough information that ignorance seems like a choice' on the matter?
He can agree with the existence and the magnitude of the problem but still admit he's not qualified enough to have an opinion on what the best solution would be, no?
Yes, which is basically my argument.. Not being a strong proponent of nuclear power does not mean you do not care about climate change. I said that the (paraphrased) statement 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not fighting for nuclear power' was stupid, precisely because not knowing enough about the solution to argue how to solve it does not mean you don't care about the problem.
Uh no you said 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x', which is completely different.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Oct 10 2021 16:17. Posts 3093
Which was in response to Baal writing 'leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power'. I guess I misread his post (thought it said leftists not leftoids), but 'nuclear power' can be changed for a number of different possible solutions and not knowing enough about how good or viable those solutions is does not make you indifferent to the problem.
I mean, sure, there's a limit. You can't care about climate change while being a proponent of expanded use of coal, but the solutions to climate change are so technical in nature and there's a significant amount of obfuscating happening.
(Anyway, this isn't really an interesting piece of discussion, we just had a slightly different interpretation of what my sentence meant, no big deal. )
lol POKER
Last edit: 10/10/2021 16:38
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 16:19. Posts 5296
It's really easy to go from nuclear power->nuclear weapons, so yes proliferation is a serious issue, and nuclear weapons have been constantly used to harm people, from 1945 up the present day. I don't think many people really understand how prominent nuclear weapons have been in modern imperialism from 1945-2021. They are still the main weapon used in war against the global south, but the trigger is never fired so people don't realize this. They are essentially used to threaten the rest of the world into submission the same way a loaded gun is used to rob shopkeepers. Aside from that, they were tested on US/British soldiers and pacific islanders. It's also a fairly attractive self-defense mechanism for any nation in the global south, but I'm optimistic that most would not use them.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 10/10/2021 16:40
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 16:43. Posts 5296
On October 10 2021 15:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
(Anyway, this isn't really an interesting piece of discussion, we just had a slightly different interpretation of what my sentence meant, no big deal. )
True, lets talk more more about how 3,000 year old technologies have no relevance to climate change, LMAO.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Oct 10 2021 20:05. Posts 2225
Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...
The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.
I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.
What does there being other options for dealing with misinformation have to do with the fact that 65% of Democrats still want the government to censor and control information to only allow what's "true" to get by. That's absolutely insane.
It has a lot to do with this. For one, both sides of the political spectrum in that poll are either ignoring the alternatives to authoritarianism or just aren't aware of them. That's pretty significant. I do like to shift attention to these issues because I think they are just far more important. The democrats that sincerely haven't thought about democratizing the media could be made aware of this. Why is this absolutely insane?
The insane thing about that poll is republicans claiming to be totally against a government monopoly on the truth while supporting a president that monopolized his own version of the truth and was an even bigger pathological lier than the ones preceding him.
yeah it's insane that republicans are smart enough to support freedom of speech. they correctly realize that a government power once adopted can be used against either side when they're not in power.
trump lying more or less than bush and obama (come on. really? is this george "WMD" bush, barack "close guantanamo, you can keep your doctor" obama we're talking about?) isn't the salient issue, it's that when it came to trump all semblance of objectivity went out the window and the media has lied (because they continue to) CONSTANTLY about EVERYTHING when it comes to him. because he's a threat, not to the world, but to their establishment.
Trumps treatment of the bankers wasn't really that different from Bush or Clinton. He essentially set it back to how it was pre 2008 once he got rid of the dodd-frank bill. This was all somewhat predictable because that's where he got a lot of his campaign finance from. Portraying himself as anti-establishment was one of his lies during his four years as presidency. The establishment only broke with him on Jan 6th 2021. Once again I reiterate that Trump got massive media support from Fox news and big tech giants like Peter Theil manipulated the social media in his favor.
peter thiel is a guy, not a tech giant. I want to know more about how you concluded peter thiel manipulated social media in trump's favor when they blocked the hunter laptop stories in the middle of an election last year...
Fox supported a Republican president? who'd have guessed Stroggoz you're such a great debater that obviously means the entire media supported Trump and you're not a gaslighting university dropout because of how pathetic that was or anything...
edit: I'm saying you're a dropout of Gaslighting University, meaning you failed to complete a gaslighting course because that was awful
not that you are a regular university dropout, who gaslights, that wouldn't be proper
says here he and the united states congress got rid of dodd-frank regulations for small and regional banks
wasn't the strongest economy in US history under trump?
is it possible to want to have banks, without being negatively establishment, or is this whole thread communists
anything remotely connected to trump is immediately lied about. it's second-nature to the media now. for example, when trump was president, as president he assumed that a country should have a border. so enter biden, and a photograph of federal agents riding horses, from CNN TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH that people were being whipped. without a second thought. did you watch morning joe scarborough get on after the milley/trump/china affair and go "of course you flyover ignoramuses, generals always tell the other side when they're not going to attack, it's how the world works, everybody knows that"
trump is strongly anti-neocon, which accounts for why he might piss off the MIC, the surveillance and alphabet community, and the deep state.
maybe you have another reason to explain the media's hysteric behavior though
On October 09 2021 23:06 Stroggoz wrote:
Typically people who are actually anti-establishment are people you don't even know exist.
we're talking about a president, he is anti-establishment compared to the relevant context. compared to ted kaczynski, he would be the establishment, yes.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
(Anyway, this isn't really an interesting piece of discussion, we just had a slightly different interpretation of what my sentence meant, no big deal. )
True, lets talk more more about how 3,000 year old technologies have no relevance to climate change, LMAO.
I didn't say its irrelevant because its old, its irrelevant because its tiny yield, what I said is that the technological ceiling of a 3k year old windmill is very little compared to nuclear technology which is in it's infancy.
The UAW (united auto workers) succesfully lobbied the democrats into passing a bill subsidizing electric vehicles only if their workers are in a union, and also specifically excluding a company if the workers own shares (as they do in Tesla), so basically is a big fuck you to Tesla, so basically its a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the pockets of electric auto makers excluding Tesla.
126th reason why unions suck, corrupt fucks legally bribing other corrupt fucks to fuck with the market and stiffle innovation.
A good reason why I think its funnier to mock democrats its because these republicans are borderline clinically retarded, it feels like bullying the slow kid in school.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 10/11/2021 07:23
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 11 2021 04:31. Posts 5296
Trump may yet get his revenge. He may not have support from the oligarchy anymore but he still has a lot of public support
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 11 2021 05:13. Posts 5296
18:00-20:00. This plus what Chomsky was saying as far back as 3 decades ago were accurate predictions of Trumpism and they were ignored, and continue to be by the liberals. Worth noting that they also overlooked a ton of other things that couldn't be predicted, like mass politicized conspiracy theories and other misinformation being spread on the internet.
All of the diseases that have led to the rise of Trump haven't been remedied. There are a few obvious ways to deal with it, the democratization of the tech industry and bringing back a manufacturing-based economy would be one way. All the oligarchy did was ban him from their media platforms. So basically their strategy was to silence him and pray he or someone like him doesn't come back, meanwhile continuing to do the exact same thing as before. I can't predict the future but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump becomes president.
This is all pretty relevant to anyone in the world right now, since many countries have their own version of Trump right now (Bolsonaro, Modi, ScoMo, ect).
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On November 11 2021 04:13 Stroggoz wrote:
All of the diseases that have led to the rise of Trump haven't been remedied. There are a few obvious ways to deal with it, the democratization of the tech industry and bringing back a manufacturing-based economy would be one way. All the oligarchy did was ban him from their media platforms. So basically their strategy was to silence him and pray he or someone like him doesn't come back, meanwhile continuing to do the exact same thing as before. I can't predict the future but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump becomes president.
This is all pretty relevant to anyone in the world right now, since many countries have their own version of Trump right now (Bolsonaro, Modi, ScoMo, ect).
lol @ "democratization", such a commie buzzword... ironically tech is in the process of decentralization and transitioning into DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) where token holders vote on the protocols actions, but of course leftists are against crypto under the pretense that PoW uses energy lol, but in reality what happens is that they don't want "tech bros" getting rich in the process of building it.. they could join and help build and also aquire wealth to perhaps re-distribute it later with his comrades, but they as always they won't, they wan't others to do so, not themselves.
I don't disagree with your statements but please show me a crypto project that is decentralized? In the top10 coins atm there is zero of them that truly are, maybe ETH or DOT are closest to it. Solana is controlled by the Solana Foundation. I'm not going to even talk about the meme coins like Doge, XRP and ADA.
For decentralization in crypto to work we'll need a wide-spread adoption first and that would be of a project that is architected as adaptable while decentralized.
On November 11 2021 03:31 Stroggoz wrote:
Trump may yet get his revenge. He may not have support from the oligarchy anymore but he still has a lot of public support
Looking at the current environment a 2nd term for Trump during the next polls is inevitable. Democrats are digging deeper and deeper everyday.
Last edit: 11/11/2021 13:10
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 11 2021 12:47. Posts 2581
I'm assuming that excluding a mistrial Rittenhouse will get a verdict similar to Bernie Goetz. Not guilty for murder but guilty for having a firearm and being under 18 or something. I love the irony of such a verdict because the courts are basically saying "Ok you used the gun for self-defense but you weren't permitted to possess the gun you used to defend yourself with."
Also want to point out that it doesn't matter what the jury finds, many people already determined whether or not he was guilty before the trial even began. Imagine a world where a not-guilty verdict leads to more rioting, then another shooting, then another trial, then another not guilty verdict and then more rioting, repeat ad infinitum.
Also I heard that the judge's cellphone went off and his ringtone was a song Trump uses for his rallies LOL
On November 11 2021 10:05 Spitfiree wrote:
I don't disagree with your statements but please show me a crypto project that is decentralized? In the top10 coins atm there is zero of them that truly are, maybe ETH or DOT are closest to it. Solana is controlled by the Solana Foundation. I'm not going to even talk about the meme coins like Doge, XRP and ADA.
For decentralization in crypto to work we'll need a wide-spread adoption first and that would be of a project that is architected as adaptable while decentralized.
On November 11 2021 03:31 Stroggoz wrote:
Trump may yet get his revenge. He may not have support from the oligarchy anymore but he still has a lot of public support
Looking at the current environment a 2nd term for Trump during the next polls is inevitable. Democrats are digging deeper and deeper everyday.
Projects with governance tokens like Curve, AAVE etc, in facts its the way most projects are going, but of course they have to start centralized since somebody has to build it, and that person while turning into a DAO will still probably hold a big chunk of the tokens and be very influential that is temporal and also completely reazonable and fair.
Also obviously theres still many flaws, this tech is in its very early stages.
On November 11 2021 11:47 blackjacki2 wrote:
I'm assuming that excluding a mistrial Rittenhouse will get a verdict similar to Bernie Goetz. Not guilty for murder but guilty for having a firearm and being under 18 or something. I love the irony of such a verdict because the courts are basically saying "Ok you used the gun for self-defense but you weren't permitted to possess the gun you used to defend yourself with."
Also want to point out that it doesn't matter what the jury finds, many people already determined whether or not he was guilty before the trial even began. Imagine a world where a not-guilty verdict leads to more rioting, then another shooting, then another trial, then another not guilty verdict and then more rioting, repeat ad infinitum.
Also I heard that the judge's cellphone went off and his ringtone was a song Trump uses for his rallies LOL
I don't see why its a problem to acquit on murder charges but guilty of illegal possesion of the weapon, seems fine to me, also the guy who got shot shoudl also be charged with illegal posession and conceal carrying the handgun when he is a felon which is more severe.
Yes ppl were saying he was guilty even before watching the videos lol, in fact Ana Kasperian did exactly that on TYT, then she had to, then she had to backpedal and give correction twice on the show lol, clowns.
Yep the Judge is certainly not good for the prosecution, not that it mattered the prosecution had nothing and were incompetent, they actually pulled the "You used to play call of duty with your friends" card.... LOL.
)
