Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 191

if you didnt watch it then why are you commenting? wasting my time

On January 07 2020 14:46 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Btw global warming - what exactly are your solutions Loco? The big issue are developing countries and basically any country with GDP per capita lower than the top nations But what can possibly the US or Western Europe tell them from a moral standpoint - halt your industry and growth for the sake of the planet in the long run, where we've built our growth exactly on that? It's like I see my friends APPALLED at government sanctioned or even tolerated burning of the Amazon, people being shocked at how can anyone do that When the same countries burned down their forrest in agricultural revolution etc. and their economy has been built on them. Basically the rich countries would not only need to go inward and go green, invest in technology, but also be willing to forgo their economic dominance to let other countries catch up faster by economic incentives. China is already 2x worse when it comes to pollution than the US (in absolute numbers)

Moralizing doesn't do anything; international relations are ruled by power over material conditions and short-term political interests. The only way to even entertain possible solutions (if it's not already too late) is if people are uniting under the threat of global catastrophe and as a result there is a paradigm change out of growthism and into regenerative/distributed networks that respect planetary boundaries and doesn't leave people behind at the same time. Yes, rich countries will have to forgo economic dominance and use their accumulated privileges and resources to fund ecological efforts in the global south, but they only will if their own growth is no longer the prime directive. Same with the poorer countries, if they are indebted and they have to compete in a global capitalist economy ruled by the profit motive, we can't expect them to make significant strides in becoming more ecologically sustainable, but the fact is that they are already much less responsible for greenhouse gas emissions than the global north countries.

"Investing in green tech" as it currently presents itself to the mainstream isn't a solution, it's just a new form of "green colonialism" that will accentuate the crisis. It's the same logic of domination at work, it's going to be pursued and maintained through war (which is the number one driver of climate change) because the extraction of rare minerals for renewable energy tech happens in poorer countries, and it produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and is extremely damaging to the environment/biodiversity. In terms of technological solutions there is a lot that can be done but it's all meaningless if the paradigmatic element isn't there and social inequality just stays as it is or keeps growing. The human species is very inventive but it's been historically terrible at cooperating and long-term planning so that's the real challenge: how do you get sleepwalkers to become aware that they're sleepwalking towards an abyss?

On January 07 2020 17:45 spets1 wrote: if you didnt watch it then why are you commenting? wasting my time

I watched a few minutes of their "summing up" at the end and commented on what I heard. It was a waste of my time, so thanks for that. I also commented on your comment, which I didn't need to watch the video in order to know that it was nonsense. You're the one who is wasting everyone's time with your lazy and superficial one sentence posts hoping that everyone can read your mind and will watch 34 minutes of random people they have no interest in commenting on a subject that they have no expertise in. Also, the expert that they name, David Packham, isn't an expert on climate change, and he is heavily featured on climate change denial websites like "realclimatescience" which is run by Steven Goddard who denies global warming: "there has been little or no warming since the 1940s". Whatever valid points he might have when it comes to prescribed burning and fuel management being important factors, it doesn't exclude the factors that are also caused by global warming playing a part in the scope and intensity of the bushfires.

You never usually post on here, but now you post a conspiracy theorist one liner preface to a video and somehow think you are entitled to half an hour of people's time after that. You have to work a bit harder if you want people's attention. Also, if you respected people's time you could have just told them to listen to the summing up at the end of the video.

lol Loco refusing to watch 30 minute videos from random schmucks

Loco

On January 07 2020 18:00 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2020 14:46 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Btw global warming - what exactly are your solutions Loco? The big issue are developing countries and basically any country with GDP per capita lower than the top nations But what can possibly the US or Western Europe tell them from a moral standpoint - halt your industry and growth for the sake of the planet in the long run, where we've built our growth exactly on that? It's like I see my friends APPALLED at government sanctioned or even tolerated burning of the Amazon, people being shocked at how can anyone do that When the same countries burned down their forrest in agricultural revolution etc. and their economy has been built on them. Basically the rich countries would not only need to go inward and go green, invest in technology, but also be willing to forgo their economic dominance to let other countries catch up faster by economic incentives. China is already 2x worse when it comes to pollution than the US (in absolute numbers) Moralizing doesn't do anything; international relations are ruled by power over material conditions and short-term political interests. The only way to even entertain possible solutions (if it's not already too late) is if people are uniting under the threat of global catastrophe and as a result there is a paradigm change out of growthism and into regenerative/distributed networks that respect planetary boundaries and doesn't leave people behind at the same time. Yes, rich countries will have to forgo economic dominance and use their accumulated privileges and resources to fund ecological efforts in the global south, but they only will if their own growth is no longer the prime directive. Same with the poorer countries, if they are indebted and they have to compete in a global capitalist economy ruled by the profit motive, we can't expect them to make significant strides in becoming more ecologically sustainable, but the fact is that they are already much less responsible for greenhouse gas emissions than the global north countries. "Investing in green tech" as it currently presents itself to the mainstream isn't a solution for the global north, it's just a new form of "green colonialism" that will accentuate the crisis. It's the same logic of domination at work, it's going to be pursued and maintained through war (which is the number one driver of climate change) because the extraction of rare minerals for renewable energy tech happens in poorer countries, and it produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and is extremely damaging to the environment/biodiversity. In terms of technological solutions there is a lot that can be done but it's all meaningless if the paradigmatic element isn't there and social inequality just stays as it is or keeps growing. The human species is very inventive but it's been historically terrible at cooperating and long-term planning so that's the real challenge and focus.

Right, so what action are you taking to change the paradigm specifically?

I don't particularly wish to talk about myself and how I live, especially on a public forum, it's more suited to discussing ideas. I don't want people to think that I am a model to follow, and I certainly don't think that I am. I'm not a guru, I don't have any shit to sell, and I feel like I should have done a lot more with my life. I'm just a guy who turned to philosophy about a decade ago partly to learn how to live with myself and partly because of an innate curiosity about life in general.

If you want to know, principally, I've tried to study the human condition as best as I could and talk with different people and challenge them as I challenge myself. What I found is that people are used to-- and generally uncritical about-- having given up their power of decision over their lives to unaccountable authority figures and they have a number of false beliefs that justify that surrender. I've realized that nothing is going to change until more people take notice of this and become more critical of authority and hierarchy and I've tried to do what I could on this front with what limited powers I had. I've also tried to focus on meditation, reducing my consumption and dependence on stuff, owning less/sharing more (with a Lao Tzu-kind of mindset that revolution begins from within). I'm a strong advocate of animal rights and I think veganism has the potential to help people become more critical and politically aware if they connect the dots and see that it doesn't just directly harm other sentient beings unnecessarily but it also intersects with other forms of domination and the climate and healthcare crises today that directly affect them.

in a world dominated by extremes, it only makes sense that centrism doesn't work

I'm assuming by 'wrong' you mean their ideology would've failed to prevent major disasters @ Stroggoz

On January 06 2020 14:23 Loco wrote: fighting fascism is worse than fascism itself

sarcastically exclaimed the guy who supports re-education camps for political dissidents.

clown.

Probably the only the way any serious economic proposal for dealing with the environment is going to happen is if a new deal democrat comes to power in the US, and the same happens in europe. (like the DiEM25 movement in europe). China, Russia would also either have to be democratized or Putin and Xi Jin Ping would have to start caring about the enviroment at great personal sacrifice. Also a carbon tax needs to be so high that private consumption on things like meat, fuel, ect, would become luxury goods. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground So yeah, i'm not optimistic.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/03/we-ne...er-green-new-deal-an-economists-take/

There are some interesting insights from economists like robert pollin. His suggestions involve every country in the world investing 1.5-2% of their gdp into a green new deal, and he estimates three times as many jobs can be created in the green economy than currently exist in fossil fuel industry.

my personal take on the China problem: A large part of china's emissions are from foreign direct investment. America can recall it's FDI by devaluing the dollar, making it unprofitable for corporations to offshore their industry, so that industry comes under home control and can be subject to a carbon tax. This would ruin China's economy obviously, but there are ways of getting around that. (again, ways i am pessimistic about). It would also reduce carbon emissions from international transport.

The rich countries could give aid to the poor nations for green protectionist development, and crucially so that these poor countries stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

remember gdp is just the number of goods and services. you could pay a bunch of unemployed people to plant trees and reforrest the earth, and it would increase gdp. There's no real reason to care about gdp as a statistic imo, but it can go up from numerous policies, either green or fossil fuel oreintated ones.

On January 06 2020 23:05 Loco wrote: Nazism is a social cancer and just like a biological cancer it can't be wished away and ignoring it in the early stages hoping it will go away is a bad idea. I brought it up because big brained centrists think that's what you should do until they have the full power of a modern state to commit genocide and unspeakable torture on those they deem undesirables.

Communism is a social cancer and just like a biological cancer it can't be wished away and ignoring it in the early stages hoping it will go away is a bad idea. I brought it up because big brained centrists think that's what you should do until they have the full power of a modern state to commit genocide and unspeakable torture on those they deem borgeois.


Also stop pretending you give a shit about climate change, you don't, its your excuse to change the economial system.

On January 07 2020 17:08 Loco wrote: Maybe you should say what "this" is, instead of being so vague. I'm not going to watch a 34 minutes video from two random schmucks

On January 07 2020 23:10 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 06 2020 14:23 Loco wrote: fighting fascism is worse than fascism itself sarcastically exclaimed the guy who supports re-education camps for political dissidents. clown.

I provided a direct quotation from the guy proving that you were misrepresenting him and you still double downed preferring to believe your own false argument over his clarification. The most hilarious thing about your selecting NonCompete as some instance of fascist behavior is that he is a fucking teddy bear. He is literally the least domineering anarchist on YouTube lol, the guy is no more likely to hurt a fly than a Buddhist monk, and you pick him of all people for your alarmist bullshit. *facepalm*

I also provided a video of a real life "re-education camp" housing ISIS members to show that it wasn't anything like your misrepresentation of it as a "gulag for political dissidents". You ignored it completely and proceeded to keep lying about the intentions and actions of anarchists as if we were all Red Fascists who are out to get Big Brained free thinkers like you and stick them in labor camps.

If ISIS members are just "political dissidents" to you, then this is basically you in the making:

You said you would send capitalists who tried to organizne to the camps, that is exactly imprisoning political dissidents you dumbass, we are not talking about actual murderers.

The meme says "right wingners be like" and depicts a nazi claiming its not an nazi... so you are saying right wingers are closet nazis which is precisely their fucking point, a self-defeating meme. Apparently I don't even have to post, you are doing a good job on defeating your own arguments yourself, good job.

On January 07 2020 23:24 Baalim wrote: Communism is a social cancer and just like a biological cancer it can't be wished away and ignoring it in the early stages hoping it will go away is a bad idea. I brought it up because big brained centrists think that's what you should do until they have the full power of a modern state to commit genocide and unspeakable torture on those they deem borgeois.

Big Brained Baal, corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures:





Big Brained Baal:

Also stop pretending you give a shit about climate change, you don't, its your excuse to change the economial system.

Yes, you have me completely figured out. I am also not vegan because I care about animal suffering, it's just an excuse to get the chicks.

On January 07 2020 23:59 Baalim wrote: You said you would send capitalists who tried to organizne to the camps, that is exactly imprisoning political dissidents you dumbass, we are not talking about actual murderers.

Why don't you provide an actual quote or screenshot of me saying that you pathetic liar? My position has always been that fascists are the only people whose freedoms have to be restricted in a democratic system because not doing so would imperil the system wherein those freedoms are made possible in the first place.

The meme says "right wingners be like" and depicts a nazi claiming its not an nazi... so you are saying right wingers are closet nazis which is precisely their fucking point, a self-defeating meme. Apparently I don't even have to post, you are doing a good job on defeating your own arguments yourself, good job.

Its an exaggeration that is meant to point out the dishonesty and the trivialization of the dangers of fascism coming from right wingers. The joke is that at its most extreme point of trivializing fascism (and further helping to normalize a right-ward pull on the Overton window), the right-winger wouldn't even realize he has turned into an actual Nazi.

When you use the words "political dissidents" to portray murderous fascists, you are being either delusional or dishonest, and you are working to normalize far-right ideology as something that should be tolerated. Edward Snowden is a political dissident. We use these words to imply that someone is being treated unjustly for challenging power structures. Fascists are not mere political dissidents, and they are not challenging power structures but trying to create the most robust and unjust ones imaginable. Dissidents are healthy in a society striving for more transparency and openness, fascists are not, and they shouldn't be allowed to organize because it poses an immediate and direct threat to the lives of innocent people.

Red Fascists (Stalinists) which you are so irrationally scared of and think represent 100% of people who identify as communists are a possible threat but they do not pose an immediate threat because their danger only takes root once they have centralized power, not before, and their ideology is extremely unpopular, unlike fascism, so we can afford to laugh about them or ignore them. Red Fascists don't go on individual murdering sprees in case you haven't noticed and they don't terrorize people on the streets for having unalterable traits that they hate.

In the video I posted about the ISIS prison the effort was put on protecting civilians from them and deradicalizing them, i.e. "re-educate" them, and it had nothing to do with your paranoid thinking in which I supposedly have this fantasy of putting factory owners into gulags.

I know this is really hard for you to grasp but, I really don't envy you. I don't want to be you. And I don't want to enact revenge on you or punish you because you have more wealth than most people. The spiritual deficiencies that you carry with your weak body and underdeveloped mind are enough punishment without my wanting to add to it.

"SYDNEY -- The number of wildlife estimated to have died in Australia’s wildfire catastrophe has skyrocketed to more than 1 billion.

Chris Dickman, an ecologist at the University of Sydney, told HuffPost that his original estimate of 480 million animals was not only conservative, it was also exclusive to the state of New South Wales and excluded significant groups of wildlife for which they had no population data.

“The original figure -- the 480 million -- was based on mammals, birds and reptiles for which we do have densities, and that figure now is a little bit out of date. It’s over 800 million given the extent of the fires now -- in New South Wales alone,” he said.

“If 800 million sounds a lot, it’s not all the animals in the firing line,” he added.

That figure excluded animals including bats, frogs and invertebrates. With these numbers included, Dickman said, it was “without any doubt at all” that the losses exceeded 1 billion. “Over a billion would be a very conservative figure,” he said.

An environmental scientist at the World Wildlife Fund Australia, Stuart Blanch, confirmed these estimates, reiterating that, given the expansion of the fires since the last calculations, 1 billion was a modest guess."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/b...n_5e13be43e4b0843d361778a6?ri18n=true

On January 08 2020 00:46 Loco wrote: Why don't you provide an actual quote or screenshot of me saying that you pathetic liar? My position has always been that fascists are the only people whose freedoms have to be restricted in a democratic system because not doing so would imperil the system wherein those freedoms are made possible in the first place.

Also everybody is a fascist to maniancs like you, you called me a fascist collaborator, so do I get sent to the camps or just Santafiry, what about Spets? , are you going to give armbands too.

the right-winger wouldn't even realize he has turned into an actual Nazi.

I guess they will find out they are nazis when you brand them and send them to the camps, wont they?

When you use the words "political dissidents" to portray murderous fascists, you are being either delusional or dishonest, and you are working to normalize far-right ideology as something that should be tolerated. Edward Snowden is a political dissident. We use these words to imply that someone is being treated unjustly for challenging power structures. Fascists are not mere political dissidents, and they are not challenging power structures but trying to create the most robust and unjust ones imaginable. Dissidents are healthy in a society striving for more transparency and openness, fascists are not, and they shouldn't be allowed to organize because it poses an immediate and direct threat to the lives of innocent people.

Dissidents are healthy for a society, except when its your distopian society, then dissidents are fascists.

Red Fascists (Stalinists) which you are so irrationally scared of and think represent 100% of people who identify as communists are a possible threat but they do not pose an immediate threat because their danger only takes root once they have centralized power, not before, and their ideology is extremely unpopular, unlike fascism, so we can afford to laugh about them or ignore them. Red Fascists don't go on individual murdering sprees in case you haven't noticed and they don't terrorize people on the streets for having unalterable traits that they hate.

Venezuela, North Korea, Bolivia, Nicaragua... all victimized by the millions from socialist ideologies, I find that far more dangerous than disturbed basement dwellers shooting up people.

In the video I posted about the ISIS prison the effort was put on protecting civilians from them and deradicalizing them, i.e. "re-educate" them, and it had nothing to do with your paranoid thinking in which I supposedly have this fantasy of putting factory owners into gulags.

Nof factory owners, apparently you are so magnanimous that you would spare them if they forefit all their property, but if they organize around capitalist ideals and against your political ideals then its gulag time.

I know this is really hard for you to grasp but, I really don't envy you. I don't want to be you. And I don't want to enact revenge on you or punish you because you have more wealth than most people. The spiritual deficiencies that you carry with your weak body and underdeveloped mind are enough punishment without my wanting to add to it.

LOL WTF?

going full Chad there..... "do you even lift bro?"

On January 08 2020 00:12 Loco wrote:

Virtue signaling reddit cunt like the rest of you... oh no, what a conondrum, how about he gives the apparment to a homeless family and shuts the fuck up.

Also didnt RiKD talk about murdering and poisoning rich people not long ago?

Isn't antifa's favourite motto "eat the rich" and bring guillotines?

yeah thats more like the good old collectivism we all know.

Yes, you have me completely figured out. I am also not vegan because I care about animal suffering, it's just an excuse to get the chicks.

Yep you dont give a shit about climate change, you don't talk about $/watt production, about viable energy sources for soon to be industrialized countries with big populations like Chinna, India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc, you've said it before, the only way to stop climate change is to destroy capitalism, quite convenient isn't it?

Yeah your concern is totally legit, nothing to see here genetlemen, move along.

I don't really want to murder or poison the rich. I actually want to throw them into re-education camps.

Like they all got together and thought this giving pledge bullshit would solve anything when none of them even have to give and the ones that do give to like Harvard University and the city of Greenwich, CT.