Forums / Discussion / General

That’s not how it works
by the logic that some people are hypocrities and use an issue or ideology to get rich so that entire thing is false, not a single religion or ideology on earth would be a thing

And it’s almost as if our knowledge of things changes with new information
that’s the difference between faith and facts

And what does that have to do with the demonstratable lack of concern over thier own emissions?

Them being perpetually poor soothsayers just emphasises the blatant reality that the preachers do not deem their perpetually oncoming storm urgent enough to sacrifice thier own comfort and convenience.

Way I see it either they dont believe thie own guff or they do but are downright aristocratic in their self exceptions,, either way makes them untrustworthy enough to be allowed to making world impacting decisions.

Well, why do religious moralists support divorcees and proud and unrepentant sinners? Why do nationalists sabotage their countries? Why do 'free-marketers' engage in monopolistic behavior? Why do isolationists love to meddle with other countries? Why do democratic interventionists end up creating and supporting dictatorships with frightening regularity (and excuse their own autocratic behavior)?

So, why do environmentalists pollute? People are hypocrites, that's what I'll guess.One can either decide to distrust all ideologies because anyone high up is a rotten politician, or just view it as something that's inherent in the system. Don't know which one is the right answer.

If they believe it is severe enough for the extreme things they perpetually call for; why arent they doing thier bit?

If they dont believe it is severe enough; why should we go to thier extremes?

If they believe its severe enough and they still not doing thier bit, whats wrong with them?

If there's something wrong with them, how can we trust them when they say it is severe?

Thus is my logic, I am comfortable believing they can only be taken seriously when they start practicing what they preach, until then I will continue refusing enviromental efforts that demand drastic self reduction. I reccomend everyone else do likewise.

Alternatively they could try reducing thier claims of dire foresight to a level that would become more reliable than "the end is nigh" sign carriers.

But then they wouldnt have the foundation by which they demand hideous societal change.

Precisely this.
This is why they are so adamant about focusing on the least likely scenario outlined by the IPCC, and almost always ignore the most probable one. It's why anytime there is a natural disaster in the US it's blamed on Climate Change even through there is scarce evidence to support it.
And we are seeing it. Just google the "Tornadoes and Climate Change" in regards to what happened over the weekend and you'll find the mass-media besides themselves trying to link it. BBC, NBC, NPR, CNN, all of them.
And all of them admit in the weeds that there is scant evidence to link the two.
This is why I think it's important for people who are into environmentalism to actually read what the IPCC report says. They outline several scenarios, from least likely, to most likely. But rather than report on the most likely scenario, politicians, activists, and news media focus almost exclusively on what is the most disastrous outcome as if that's the path we are currently on.
I did a thread on it this year here with screenshots of the actual report and what relationship CC has with different natural phenomenon.

And the worst thing is, the blatant poor reporting on the actual science, the fear mongering that they force on the public while simultaneously ignore themselves erode credibility and trust. Have we learned nothing from good public policy and this pandemic? With climate policy? With actual environmental issues we as a collective species were able to solve (restoring the Ozone Layer)? Public policy relies on trust and credibility, every time you lose that, the weaker and weaker the political will there is for anyone to support your measures. And when shit does hit the fan, no one is going to believe you when you urge them to support drastic measures. It's infuriating.

I did meet some environmentalists who practice what they preach, but they lived in a commune that grew their own food and used renewables for any electricity needs. Not like they're in charge of anything. Probably the same for anyone who's an actually practicing idealist, thinking about it.

Your logic is my thought exactly when the US demands something from other countries. Or when the religious want their laws upheld, even though they don't follow any of them. Or when any other group can't keep their nose in their own affair.

The question is if that's a good principle to live by. If you don't think environmental degradation is an issue, then behavior wouldn't change it. If you think it is, then you may as well do your part, because that's the only thing that can be done. Or be apathetic.

I've given up hope for environmentalism, same as with vaccines and the pandemic. If people die as a consequence of their choices, so be it, and if it's a species wide issue, then that's our great filter. Thinking we're doomed one way or another does helps with the anxiety, to answer the original question about being worried about climate change.

Well me personally my plan isn't to avoid global warming collapse per se my plan is to for example build giant bunkers, wall cities, co-2 filters, artifitial islands, invest on darkening the skies/space travel and the sort, etc as I don't think the inevitable ecological collapse can actually be avoided so I want to see how we can survive it and adapt to it…I guess

Well, there's a difference between climate mitigation and climate adaptation, good point. Even if one's heart is not filled with love for mankind, one can still make contingency plans for themselves. Having a ticket to an Arcology might be a trend for the future.

Geo-engineering is something I'm skeptical of, since darkening the skies won't change the acidification of oceans.

Can I point out the hypocrisy of the accusation of fear mongering going around for vaccines and climate change? We've been subject to fear mongering for decades now.

Many are from those who I distinctly recall fear mongering on their own agenda about globalists, immigrants, terrorists, trade, democracy, other countries, elites, economics or whatever moralistic crusade they were on. Some are important issues as well, but it doesn't change the amount of sensationalism.

Then again, this tactic has hurt the credibility of the above, so there's a good point…

My plan against ocean acidification is to…drop a bunch of a bleach like substance in the water idk. Yeah not sure what to do about that besides….live through the problems it will cause, but I guess you could add something into the water to counteract the acid….maybe..

I don't have much of a plan here I am expecting a lot of people and animals to potentially die but darkening the sky would potentially work so… Guess we do that

Unfortunately, adding bleach to water with acid in it doesn't make it drinkable.

If everything else fails you can always build underground cities and/or well…guettos, not ideal at all but yeah, no global warming on the underground

Nancy Pelosi scoffs at the idea of congressional members trading stocks despite the fact that she has more than $51 Million in stocks, with a portfolio that grew 56%

I'm soooooo suprised
no politician should be able to hold stocks

Oh, but it's a "Free Market". Adam Smith can probably be used for alternative energy considering how often his work is perverted and misrepresented.

Multiple senators from Richard Burr to Nancy Pelosi used the pandemic to grow their fortunes. This whole crisis has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. When officials trade stocks with insider information, it's an oligarchy or crony-capitalism, not a 'Free Market'.

At the very least, they shouldn't be allowed to engage in insider trading.

Yep
and nobody ever fights against it because "THAT'S LITTTERRRALLLY COMMUNISM!!!!"

>crony-capitalism
Adding any adjective as prefix doesn't change the fact that's still capitalism.

It shouldn't be technically. Any 'true' believer in the benefits of the Free-market would be horrified by it, this kind of collusion reduces competitiveness, and the efficiency and innovation that is supposed to come with it.

The Rich and Leaders (even those who gained power due to meritocratic systems) cementing their power and pulling up the ladder after them is a rot, many who use Free-market terms are actually one of the most dangerous poisons to the ideology.

I sometimes wish I knew a 'real' neoliberal. I would think that one who wasn't completely deluded would be heartbroken.

People in power using foreknowledge of economic interferance to ensure they profit, many orchestrating interferance soley for that purpose: It's a common occurance under pretty much every form of government and economic thought all the way back to the days of Ur.

Be it a Chinese Eunuch, a Roman Senator, a French courtier, a Soviet Apparatchik or an American congressman; an unscrupulous bureaucrat rarely goes hungry.

I dont think it is a consequence of capitalism as much as it is a consequence of power itself.

We should still empower the working masses politically though. I'm pissed corporations and greedy politcians are able to get away with so much

Chile just elected a socialist as president with a strong majority, and the foreign corporate press are losing it.
Just look at how the BBC is reporting on it. They're acting like the SNP in Scotland shouldn't have won the majority again.

Smells like a coup d'état is coming

It's South America, so a lot of things could happen. A coup, a dictatorship, or perhaps even nothing of substance. I suppose much of this hinges on what comes of their constitutional convention.

Yep, Biden's gonna authorize pinochet 2.0 and the dems are still gonna call you LITTERALLY HITLER if you vote third party

They're even painting Boric as an anti-semite for calling the Israeli government genocidal.
Which is kinda is, considering how they've been encroaching upon Palestinian territory.

It's a very delicate situation, and from a cursory glance, he's handling it quite recklessly.

He did kindly tell the Jewish Chilean community to fuck off until Israel (which, mind, is not their country) stops doing bad things. Which comes off as a bit anti-semitic to me; if you can't see it, try and picture the situation, but with Palestinian Muslims and Hamas instead. Two years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things, so it seems unlikely that his position has changed significantly since this tweet.

So they're celebrating Kyle Rittenhouse at TPUSA and it's made quite clear the American right has become a murder cult itching for death squads. Look, even if he was chased first, it's still sick

I suppose I should just be glad you've graduated to admitting he was chased.

Maybe this time next year you might take note of the attempt to take his gun, the skateboard swung at his head, the guy drop kicking his face and the gun pointed at his head.

Maybe by next year you'll realize that he was in a bad situation that he purposefully put himself in to engage in violence
and while he killed in self defense, it's not something to celebrate

Tell me you didnt watch the trial without telling me you didnt watch the trial.

He had more reason to be there than any of the rabble his arson prevention inspired to attempt murder.

The right to defend one's own life against mob violence being upheld in spite of massive propaganda campaigns and attempts at jury intimidation is everything to celebrate.

Or. Hear me out:
They are celebrating the upholding of self defense laws first and foremost.
Especially for someone who clearly defended themselves during a violent riot. A riot that many on the American left outright encouraged, participated in, and inflamed. A riot where the city's police force absolutely failed to do anything about. Defending themselves against an attacker who was by every standard a pretty fucked up dude (child rapist). This is, on every fundamental reason, why the second amendment is sacred to the "right", as it ought to be for the "left". When the government fails to protect you, as it has during the 2020 summer riots, you cannot rely on anything else but your own firearms for protection.

It makes me wonder if the reason that so many people are upset over the whole issue with Kyle Rittenhouse isn't that he "murdered" anyone. The meat of the issue is that these riots are no longer a one-sided free for all. They now have someone who fought back, lethally, and was defended in courts. All of a sudden, setting neighborhoods on fire, throwing bricks at shops, assaulting people may have a lethal consequence. It's back to the roof-koreans.

It also makes me wonder if the anti-gun crowd hate this because it undermines their most fundamental argument that people don't need guns to protect themselves when they have the police to do it.

Bro.
Really?
Genocidal?
The Palestinian population has quadrupled since 1948, that's not genocidal. There is no active campaign to mass kill Palestinians for the purpose of destroying that group. The literal textbook definition of what Genocide is.

Why is this conflict, above all other conflicts, riddled with so many buzzwords that have no realistic application to it? Genocide? Colonialism? Imperialism?

The fact the ones he killed were scum is pure luck and don't have any meaning towards the situation as he didn't know they were

Them being scum seems pretty likely given the circumstances. Who else would try and attack someone for stopping an arson attempt but genuinely awful people?

It is true, though, that the specific type of scum they were was up to chance. Really, it's immaterial to the situation at hand: if a Nobel Peace Prize winner was charging at him with a skateboard and had expressed intent to cause grievous harm, he'd be just as justified in shooting in self-defense as he was in this case.

Luck had nothing to do with it, you don't need to use self-defense against non-scum.

The entire thing was a shitshow cause a lot of things that ideally shouldn't be happening happened especially in a first world country, the police just giving up and protests turning into arguable acts of terrorism for one.

I agree
though the nobel peace prize is a hilariously meaningless award often given to warmongers

The fact that the one he killed was scum was like sprinkles to an already delicious ice cream.
The meat of the issue as I see it is this: Self-defense laws working as intended – against a clear attacker. (whatever the intention of Kyle being there is irrelevant to fact of the ground). During a situation where the cops were incapable of administering protection. Followed by being celebrated for standing up during a violent riot that the police force and local government failed to do anything about. For the right self defense is a paramount issue of gun-ownership. This is something that the anti-gun crowd seems to have a hard time grasping. At best they argue that self-defense should be delegated to the government, fair enough. But what happens when the government not only failed to protect you, but outright encouraged the violence? This is the answer. And it's an ugly, violent, brutal answer, but one that the anti-gun crowd has to face in an extremely public way.

The right made him into a hero because it was anti-gun left that made him into the villain, despite all the evidence in the world that Kyle was right to self defense was lawfully exercised. The radical factions in the progressive circles despise him because he is a symbol of resistance to their riots and activism. They didn't have to face the consequence of being shot. Now they do. And the progressives are correct when they say now anytime there is a riot or a protest some right-wing guy with a rifle is going to show up, itching to shoot someone and claim self defense. They are right. But guess what, the people in those communities, the people being assaulted, having their businesses that they've spent decades building, their lives destroyed for no reason? Those people get to vote. And they vote with their guns.

I will speak for my state here:
In 2020, handgun sales in California increased 65.5%. Long guns increased 45.9%. The riots, mixed with the smash and grab sprees, and radical defunding of the police. Which, incidentally, San Francisco's Mayor London Breed decided to refund the police amidst a massive spike in crime, homicides and car thefts. LA did this a bit earlier this year with trying to refund the police after cutting 150 million from the budget.

You do realize that all the riots aren’t some “radical progressive” conspiracy right?
the rioting itself was caused both by police brutality against actual peacefull ones as well as shit starters like the boogaloo boys making them into riots, alongside the looters who just want to steal
yea there were riots for the same reasons as the protests but if’s dishonest to paint them all that way

I never said it was a radical progressive conspiracy.
What I did observe in the 2020 riots across the country is many left-leaning cities having their political class outright encourage these riots, forcing the police to either stand down or do nothing. What I did observe was the media calling these riots "mostly peaceful protests" when they are standing in front of burning buildings. What I saw was activists from BLM and other radical groups making the case that looting and burning down these things was "voice of the unheard".

And let's be crystal clear about the context of the Kenosha Riots over Jacob Blake – who's girlfriend called the cops on him. The same girlfriend he sexually assaulted a month prior month. Which claimed that in May of 2020, broke into her home, stuck his fingers into her vagina, pulled it out, smelled it and said "Smells like you've been with other men." Who admitted that, despite "not thinking clearly", he picked up the knife during the altercation with the officers that shot him.

This is who the BLM and the activists decide to burn the city over? This is their hero?
Let me ask you something.
Why is it in the last 2 years we've seen the progressives, BLM and other activists, so vehemently simp for some of the worst scum there is?

And by the way. I'm no fan of the pigs. I'd rather there be massive overhaul if not total privatization of the entire police force. But why is it that so many of these riots emerge out of defending some seriously scummy people?

Joe Manchin apparently thinks his constituents don't deserve some extra money because they would just spend it on drugs.

This isn't about one man being mistreated by police. It's about the fact that what happened to others like Jacob Blake and George Floyd could happen to any black person, and the system is playing favorites towards whites. The worst part is that way too many people refuse to acknowledge this reality.

They tried a dialogue, it didn't take. They tried kneeling before the flag, it didn't work. What other options do you think could work if you were in their shoes?

I doubt BLM even wants what they do to work. Someone trying to sabotage the movement would have been hard pressed to more effectively undermine it than BLM regularly does to themselves.

They have the MLK playbook, they still have living experience of the civil rights movement to draw upon. It is utterly inexcusable that they should be such rank incompetents.

Yet time and again they pull shit that only serves to sap thier legitimacy and piss off the people they ostensibly are trying to win over.

They should be pulling stunts to try and bait the police into comitting the injustices they oppose on as public a stage as possible; you know, like the successful civil rights movements did.

Instead they're burning thier own neighbourhoods because a rapist was stupid enough to pull a knife on a police officer.

Vet. The. Martyrs. Rage over the murders of saints is one thing, a city alight because some vile sinner found his comeuppance inspires no sympathy but for the executioner.

The statistical reality is not in your favor on this one though.
The reality is that mistreatment by police can happen to anyone regardless of skin color. And yes, the police should absolutely be held accountable for it. But how exactly does burning down your own communities, demanding your cities defund the police, actually inspire anyone who votes to care? Statistics have shown that riots do the very opposite of what they often intend to do. They ferment anger and resentment towards the activists and in turn the victims the activists fight for.

And so it has come to this:
Support for BLM has been dropping significantly across every demographic. The leaders of these activists movements, especially BLM, have been exposed as grifters, self proclaimed Marxists that live in one of the most expensive and reclusive areas of Los Angeles. The communities they promised to help received not a dime.

The defunding of the police as a reaction and demand of the activist has led to massive spikes in crime, homicide, robberies, etc. One of the most liberal states in the Union, California, has had such a high increase in gun sales as a result of this it became the 6th largest market for gun sales in the US. The number one place in the entire country where the most guns were sold in 2020? Chicago Illinois.

Now if I was in their shoes? First and foremost. Choose your battles wisely. There are plenty of good people being horribly abused by the police. Defend those, make those the national headlines. Organize and march, absolutely, but unequivocally condemn any riots, any looting, and if they begin, immediately go to the public with condemnation. Separate your movement from the grifters, the race-activists, the radicals. Make this issue not just about your race, but make it about us as a people. Work with Police Unions, work with politicians. At least offer some reasonable and acceptable reform ideas, rather than some hippy dippy shit that can only fly in relatively affluent white suburbs like "Defunding the police".

Because here's the facts: any reform needs political support. Political support comes from demographic support. You are building a coalition and a movement and the more people you have supporting you the bigger political will there is for major reform. Burning down shit? Makes people hate you. Destroying people's businesses and shutting down their lives? You are creating decades long resentment. Immediate emotional gratification will be far more costly than a measured approach.

All I can add to this to try and defuse the increasingly heated "discussion" is a bit of perspective. It's very easy for anyone here to sit at a keyboard, examine some numbers or YouTube videos, and orate on behalf of the issue according to whichever "side" they want to be true; it's not hard to create an argument that sounds definitive when you can crack open a thesaurus and boil the situation down to whichever viewpoints can reasonably be presented as "the facts." Anyone can say, for instance, that MLK condemned rioting wholesale and embraced total pacifism, or they can just as easily say he endorsed it; or paint someone as either totally innocent and without failings or wholly evil and deserving of whatever they got; and you could bring in plenty of "facts" to back up either position. None of that, however, will change what the people who are affected are feeling or experiencing, or the validity of those things. At the risk of taking a third "side," I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to call out judgements and "solutions" while offering nothing in the way of addressing the other position beyond dismissal (or, in a similar vein, the classic token "concession" of "well, there certainly are problems that should be addressed, but…". This is not to imply that one's opinion simply doesn't matter if they aren't directly affected by the issue at hand; however, making demands of the other side (often demands that ignore aspects of the issue itself) while presenting their anger and fear as objectively irrational will not solve the problem, no matter how elegant the wordcrafting.

Smart answer

I don't like neither the police or BLM all that much at this point, both groups keep doing seriously questionable shit

I agree with Lake though

I'm of the opinion that giving legitimacy to violent political groups will kill democracies in the long-run, but there's also been several pages about institutional issues. There's dark days ahead.

Yeah. We're forum goers. It can't be taken too seriously, since commenting from a distance won't get the truth of the matter.

Yeah arguably the entire police structure is corrupt at this point, a policeman kills someone maliciously and they don't even get fired because of police unions and shit, not that I would go the full ACAB route but I can't say the whole system isn't hopelessly corrupt