Forums / Discussion / General

Well, libraries is my personal subject of interest. The more the problem got denied, the more I focused on it.

Anyway, I've read your article. "MUSTIE" is so utterly dystopian. If the "Right" have a bad habit of misusing words like "freedom, honour" and the infamous "purity" (ex: "Moms for Liberty), the "Left" has these insipid "cute" acronyms.

remove all books [published] prior to 2008.

Moronic, really there's no other way to characterize it, nor is there any defense of it. Personally, I hope that anyone who is concerned about one type of knee-jerk banning is concerned by all of them.

vague directive

Last page I went about syllogisms, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Vague directives cause terrible consequences.

Not sure if it's a deliberate attempt at making a directive look stupid, or if it's an earnest attempt at following orders, but it's Toronto, so I'm leaning towards the latter.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" meets "Advanced enough incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".

I'd attribute it to malice instead, because there's an ideological imperative here that was for banning "some books" just not "half of them", which is exactly the type of out-of-control dogma inspired censorship which I criticized the American Right for.

In the meantime, students like Takata are left with half-empty shelves and questions about why they weren't consulted about their own libraries.

No one asked for our opinions," she said. "I feel that taking away books without anyone's knowledge is considered censorship."

Reina Takata is far more intelligent as a student than the rest of these "adults".

That's the interesting thing about these censorship movements, they're all top-down. It's not the teachers, or librarians or even students who are curating their spaces (and they do, even if it's just to decide what to spend money on).

I would say "wow with this whole Project 2025 I sure am glad I aint in the united states right now" but Honduras is pretty shit and is being taken over by a communist regime so…yeah…both USA and Honduras look like they are enteringndark times probably

Well uhm….I guess I can at least easily go hide in Guatemala? Its rather close and relatively safe…. Idk

Imagine alting after getting banned from the site just so you can get in the last word in an internet argument, wild thought am I right? Haha don't know why I randomly thought of something so silly, anyway carry on gamers

Lisalombs moment

was it for likebotting?

Or perhaps showing people why the reasons he was banned are weak. Oh well. No wonder there's only like 5 people…well now 4, keeping this thread alive.

Oh….I was hoping it didnt have to end this way but I get it….oh well

See ya Greyblades, while I dont approve of the path you were taking this place sure will be less active now.

Shame, it was fun having more than one consistent voice of dissent, and for such flimsy reasons too. This is why, as I've said many times before, this site needs a coherent body of rules like a fish needs water; both so the users can know what is and isn't in bounds, and so the mods need sturdier reasons for action beyond "I personally dislike this guy". I mean, I've been on forums where there are codified rules and mods still act like that, but it requires more effort to fit actions to existing rules than to create new rules out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of punishing one user.

Edit: Oh shit did they ban Chair too?

was it for likebotting?

No. I'm still not convinced that it's an actual thing, and not people being overly focused on fake Internet points due to Reddit poisoning.

Now, back to existing thread topics…

Moronic, really there's no other way to characterize it, nor is there any defense of it. Personally, I hope that anyone who is concerned about one type of knee-jerk banning is concerned by all of them.

Other removals at least had a coherent reason and general target. For the attempted 2020 removal (that got interrupted by more pressing matters), said reason was racism in the form of racial slurs. Stupid, as this covers important books like To Kill a Mockingbird, but it comes from a place that's straightforward and can be understood.

For the more recent wave of removals, the two primary reasons were sexual content and propaganda. Still stupid, though it took a bit longer to start impacting books of significance like Maus due to a larger buffer of high-profile stupid books under those umbrellas.

Removing books for the crime of being "old" lacks any strong, coherent ideological backing, unless we're getting into French Revolutionary or Khmer Rouge "year zero" bullshit territories.

Reina Takata is far more intelligent as a student than the rest of these "adults".

In my experience with the American school system, a large portion of the faculty in any school is rather dim. Wouldn't be a big surprise if the case was similar in Canada.

I would say "wow with this whole Project 2025 I sure am glad I aint in the united states right now" but Honduras is pretty shit and is being taken over by a communist regime

Don't fear too hard. Only some of Project 2025 even has a chance of getting anywhere, and those are mostly the minor parts, like trying to curtail the growing bureaucracy of the White House. I wonder, are you getting your American news primarily from here? If not, is it from some online personalit(ies) or Honduran news?

And speaking of the latter, what's going on in Honduras, exactly? It does seem like the current ruling party wants a new constitution, and political radicals writing new constitutions has a poor track record in Latin America, and they seem buddy-buddy with Maduro, but I'm not sure if much has yet happened domestically.

Given the popularity of Bukele in neighboring El Salvador, I also am curious about President Castro's stance on crime.

Well Spaggeto its a bit complicated to explain but well… we have had marches against communism so there is some tension there

And well…at the very least here is our president sucking Hugo Chavez dick…so yeah I think that speaks for itself

Here she is warranteeing she wont expropiate anyone property…which is good, but shows that people think that is at least a possibility which is also a bad sign

She is ironically much more charismatic and arguably smart than her husband, a shame that she is the puppet of her husband the ex-president of Honduras Mel Zelaya.

Here is his husband talking about how there needs to be socialism in Honduras, doesnt sound that bad until you remember the only socialism people know here is Venezuela and shit.

You can tell she is following in his footsteps.

Things look….chaotic in my country right now

Yeah, chairs gone too, they found the messages of him calling people a groomer and that was the last straw.

I feel, from now on, I will be treating this community with more respect and kindness. Kym is not so awful to me anymore after the project 2025 entry anymore

edit: the like "botting" thing was real, I checked a post, and it got unburied and lost half its downvotes after the two got banned. So, like, one of them for sure made alts to downvote posts they didnt like; as petty as it sounds

That explains SO FUCKING MUCH

Really, just make a server and keep going at it

PD: See ya in hell greyblades and chair

Hope gray touches grass
Too bad chair had to be an ass, he was alright sometimes

edit: the like "botting" thing was real, I checked a post, and it got unburied and lost half its downvotes after the two got banned. So, like, one of them for sure made alts to downvote posts they didnt like; as petty as it sounds

There's a lot of problems with this claim, so I'll list them out real quick:

1. An account can only vote on something once. Someone having a number of alts that also got banned is possible, but since people have been complaining about likebotting for years now, it'd probably have warranted some mention somewhere. Happened the last time someone got in trouble for using socks to manipulate votes (and they even got to keep their main account!)
2. The only part of the site with any sort of tracking for votes is the forums. Otherwise, the only methods for catching this behavior is tracking IP addresses, looking for suspicious activity patterns, and constantly watching any post that might become a hotbed for suspicious voting activity. None of these are foolproof, so even if a banned user did have sockpuppets, they could remain undetected as long as they never did anything out of the ordinary with them.
3. I'm not sure if bans actually delete votes or not. Given the apparent instability of the site, deleting potentially thousands of votes over several years likely runs the risk of crashing it. So it either happens slowly, or doesn't happen at all.
4. I doubt you looked at that particular post recently enough to remember its score and downvotes in enough detail to notice a change. I'm curious to see what it is, though.

Now, while I still maintain that there probably isn't likebotting, I do have a proposal: the votes might be coming from outside the house. KYM doesn't have many enemies, but we do have a few, most notably the former /qa/ board on 4chan. They've spammed us with shitty Wojaks in the past, both before and after their exile, and they have a penchant for raiding. While no KYM thread seems to exist on the dedicated raiding board of their altchan, the possibility of a long-term troll campaign does exist.

Really, just make a server and keep going at it

Tbh that isn't a bad idea, though some things would need to be worked out for it to, you know, work.

IDK about that, my most prominent memory of him is when the war just started in Ukraine, and we got into an argument whether or not we should aid Ukraine, I was pro-aid because I thought the war was unjust, he claimed he was afraid of nuclear threat.

At some point, he told me to join the foreign legion then, and I said that I would have joined the foreign legion myself, but I found out that you needed military service to join; and then he kept sending me links about how to join the legion? Like, he kept claiming I could join anyway (like I didn't actually do any research into joining?) and kept sending me links that he said that they said I could join. Each and every single link he sent told me the exact thing, which is what I told him; I couldn't join. At this point, I realize how disingenuous he is and how he doesn't read a single thing he posts, he just tried to 'win' arguments; as well as finding it really weird and funny how this dude is trying to help to send me off to a war. I called him out for it, and he just started spamming the ever loving shit out of me (which is one of the reasons why I decided later to turned off notifications).

When someone found out how to block users with AdBlock, he became the 1st and only user I have blocked.

I hope he, uh… achieves his dream of being a custodian (or being a welder or whatever it was) but I also hope his life doesn't get better than that.

Looks like a user claims that he did send at least one KYS message at one point so it might be more than likebotting

I don't like the dislike feature hiding the post. If the post is offensive enough to break the rules moderate it and remove it. Otherwise I view a dislike as a disagree, and if too many people disagree it shouldn't result in hiding the post. Personally, it would be nice if liking or disliking a post would at least demand some sort of engagement, maybe a sentence at bare minimum. You can make the case that who cares about Karma, it's just a score, yeah, I agree it is, but if a negative score results in hiding the post it just motivates bad decorum.

Personally I hate it when I post something and it gets negative score without any commentary. I genuinely want to know if something I posted is incorrect. I like to be challenged because I don't mind my views changing. And on many issues they have. Hell I've grown a bit more open to certain government regulations despite being a minimalist, mostly because I did have good engagement with some people here.

I don't like the dislike feature hiding the post. If the post is offensive enough to break the rules moderate it and remove it. Otherwise I view a dislike as a disagree, and if too many people disagree it shouldn't result in hiding the post. Personally, it would be nice if liking or disliking a post would at least demand some sort of engagement, maybe a sentence at bare minimum. You can make the case that who cares about Karma, it's just a score, yeah, I agree it is, but if a negative score results in hiding the post it just motivates bad decorum.

Personally I hate it when I post something and it gets negative score without any commentary. I genuinely want to know if something I posted is incorrect. I like to be challenged because I don't mind my views changing. And on many issues they have. Hell I've grown a bit more open to certain government regulations despite being a minimalist, mostly because I did have good engagement with some people here.

oh, greyblades and ergonomic chair are gone? what a shame.

Whoah, a lot of stuff happened while I was out yesterday.

I guess it wouldn't be sporting to reply to Greyblades elsewhere, but as a general response to the project 2025 topic, there were a few other people around the web saying the variation of "[the government] is already filled with cronies" to justify it.

I wanted to say that complete cynicism is equal to complete naive credulity in helping authoritarians, because catastrophisme empowers dictators historically.
Some of the people working in the public sector just want to do their jobs.

It also smacks of projection, because the motion to discriminate against the LGBTQ, the continued push for restrictions on abortion, the nonsense in medicine, all of this is outlined in Project 2025.

It points to a pattern, this isn't just a bunch of unrelated policies for the GOP to gain votes for whatever else it is they supposedly want, it's a consistent theocratic push that has now become main party platform.

"Votes" with @Steve,No!!, Spaghetto & Chewybunny

I once saw Kenetic Kups get around 18 total votes in total (both up and down) in this forum, which is lucky to see above double-digits in posting users. Something strange was going down, but who cares?

Might be interesting how a person votes, but it's not like this place is so big that getting downvoted means your gets ignored.

"Book bans" with @Spaghetto

As a head's up, I'll probably be off of the internet for the rest of Sunday and the beginning of next week, which is why I'm trying to get any replies out now. I'll respond than.

Anyway, all of the 3 book bans you mentioned all had an issue of the means they used. Means don't justify the ends, if anything the means is what separates a Republic from a "People's Republic" like NK.

All 3 of the movements you listed had issues of vetting the books, of verifying and of controlling their own scope and themselves. They had a problem for how they'd fulfill their "objective" from the very start.

Removing books for the crime of being "old" lacks any strong, coherent ideological backing, unless we're getting into French Revolutionary or Khmer Rouge "year zero" bullshit territories.

That's because removing anything "old" isn't the initial goal as noted by the article, but it's the end-result because of poor implementation. The same way that "removing slurs" turned into "banning a valuable book against racism" and remove "sexual content and propaganda" turned into "remove anything that goes against theocratic sensibilities".

It's also how "focus on reviewing books that were published 15 or more years ago" turns into "remove anything old".

(The "a few banned books a school" you mentioned earlier went past the thousands in the US because of this, it turns out addition on a massive scale can lead to large results. Turns out that a movement preceded by a literal book burning and led by hysterical moral guardians won't control themselves).

In my experience with the American school system, a large portion of the faculty in any school is rather dim. Wouldn't be a big surprise if the case was similar in Canada.

That's genuinely sad.

I can think only of two adults in my time in primary and secondary who I had genuine contempt for at that age, so I was lucky with my teachers (genuine contempt is different from making fun of or getting exasperated if they assign too much homework). A few even sent me congratulation notes when I advanced to tertiary education.

It's one reason why the murder of Samuel Paty was so repulsive, and why the way teachers are overworked, underpaid, devalued and disrespected everywhere gets to me.

Any society which neglects basic education like this way pays in the long-run.

yep…things are gonna be slower in the forums now….we would have someone posting on this politics forum by now

The only thing I worry about the bans of both users is the remote possibility that this site enters into a political echo chamber phase. Hopefully that will not happen. As we have at least three and a quarter¹ conservative users remaining.

Honestly, Greyblades had it coming. Gems like "AP is a leftist outlet" or "The pope and the archibishop of canterbury are commies" are signs that someone is hopelessly radicalized and can't be expected to debate rationally.

And Chair… well he was kinda a jerk to me and others on most of his interactions. On the bright side now we can complete a trinity of banned chairs alongside Armchair Psychologyst and Centrist Armchair. We just need a banned table and we'll have the complete set.

1: I am the quarter, curiously, as I lean center-right in some social issues, yet I'm definitively a leftist on economics. I previously defined myself a "conservative in culture" but I'm starting to doubt if "conservative" is the correct adjective for me.

Who are the three and a half left?

If Yeed is the quarter, and you're one, and Spaghetto is the other one, than who's the last one? For a given definition of "conservative" anyway, as a dichotomy between two different factions.

Oh hey, someone here got 22 votes in total, so there's definitely a few lurkers.

I don't view myself as conservative, though. I view myself closer to a classic liberal. Closer to a minimalist at times.

As I said, it's in terms of a simplistic dichotomy, a better way to phrase it is "US Republican or Democrat"?

I know it isn't always that simple: I'm a social democrat, turned centrist/pragmatist for anyone else than the far-right or far-left, so there's an element on statism which isn't discussed as much, but which we've butted heads over before.

And in different ways, I've been on about the overreach over the books bannings and other moralistic meddling for a while now.

I'm not a conservative, except if you define "conservative" as "holds disagreements with the site's predominant breed of liberalism" (which is what many online leftists would call "shitlib"; offense intended is all theirs).

I'm a habitual devil's advocate who tries to read past the headlines and avoid fearmongering. My actual politics? I don't like the state and think Stirner memes are funny. If we're talking the US political space, I prefer the Libertarians over the uniparty. They're still pretty stupid, but like, in a less severe and malicious manner.

HA! ""Profreedom""

I'm surprised they managed to sneak in the "Pro-Environment" thing given their record of being pro-business and pro-fossil

I was refering to the site-wide users, not precisely the ones who frequent this forum. A specific name does not really comes to mind, as I was refering to multiple users that have been defending conservative points on the comment sections of the site, for some of them (Mothman, || | | |_) there is some ambiguity if they would classify or identify as conservative –likely not–, but for some (eg: Sunsoft Bass, Patriotic Autocannon, Ammosexual) is clearly obvious.

Actually there is a massive, and growing, "eco fascism" movement growing among the right. Especially among the more primitivist ideological campss. This is a massive blindspot many on the left have and it is also one of the fastest factions amongst the far right. I think eco fascism is inevitable, unfortunately. Not the way the right views it…but far worse. Far far worse. Because we cannot reconcile the reality that for every coal plant. The West tears down, China build five more. The future is war. Violent war. War over the ecosystem. War over the preservation of all mankind. A war of the first world and the third world. It's so so so goddam tragic.

I guess we have two choices
- listen to this guy and fight reality
- tell his ass to shut up

No offense, but 'm skeptical, and I reject any notion of any hint of "Eco-consciousness" with the American Right with your explanation. People say a lot of things about themselves, whether that's true depends.

You know what would be a good "Eco-fascist" thing to do (if there can be anything good in that vicious "ideology")? Enforcing changes to the fourth industrial revolution, setting subsidies, cracking down harshly on net polluters and even changing zipcodes to maintain safer cities, irrespective of home owner or real estate developer wants. Go full Malthusian.

Or even go for Science-fiction and build Arcologies ! The American Right has done none of that, in pure announced policies they are and continue to put their head in the sand and ramp up fossil fuels. De Santis and Trump like Bush before them.

What you described just sound like another way to repackage the American Right's tendency to use foreign scapegoats, because. that's. what. they've. always. done. It's not a fundamental change, it's a re-affirmation that some people will always be the same.

Ever since Bush.

Pretty much a summation of Project 2025 (except the environment).

@Chewybunny & @Spaghetto

No offense intended, but people say a lot of things about their own political views. I myself can't call myself a Democratic socialist anymore, if I'm willing to work with even neo-liberals against extremist factions, am I?

Maybe the above image is making me very cynical about the American Libertarians, considering how little I hear them commenting about the theocratic and authoritarian nonsense that is brewing in their camp. Than again, maybe they're just too small.

In my memory, I think Chewybunny is the only who has ever said anything against GOP Party Orthodoxy, and in your case Spaghetto, from my memory, you're motivated by contrarianism, not being a devil's advocate, that's stuff beyond "owning the libs".

A Devil's advocate can switch sides and argue the unpopular opinion. The extremely unpopular ones, one that go beyond the two-party faction dichotomy, ones that even run counter to one's own ideology, with the logic that the ability to betray and rethink an ideology can only strengthen it.

Don't ask me for examples, that's very rare.

@Yeed

but for some (eg: Sunsoft Bass, Patriotic Autocannon, Ammosexual) is clearly obvious.

I have no idea who those people are, they never comment here. Which works, I guess.

Sounds like shit might go down between Canada and India, as Trudeau is accusing the government of India of assassinating a Sikh leader on Canadian soil in June.

Source

A Devil's advocate can switch sides and argue the unpopular opinion.

A contrarian is just a devil's advocate you don't like. But perhaps a more productive thing to say is, the unpopular opinion to argue simply hasn't changed meaningfully in the past several months. A devil's advocate, or a voice of "this is probably not as bad as you think it is", starts sounding one-note when their surroundings are.

What you described just sound like another way to repackage the American Right's tendency to use foreign scapegoats

Scapegoat or not, the PRC absolutely is burning an increasing amount of fossil fuels.

Sounds like shit might go down between Canada and India, as Trudeau is accusing the government of India of assassinating a Sikh leader on Canadian soil in June.

Likely related is that Trudeau's recent visit to India was downright embarrassing. Seems like he's committed to torpedoing his country's relations with India at every turn, which is… curious. He's probably just an idiot, but given other aspects of Canadian politics, it raises some questions.

Aren't nuclear families non-traditional? I think more traditional is to live in multi-generation environments.

You are right but dont expect this people to actually know anything about history. I dont think they read all that much.

A contrarian is just a devil's advocate you don't like. But perhaps a more productive thing to say is, the unpopular opinion to argue simply hasn't changed meaningfully in the past several months. A devil's advocate, or a voice of "this is probably not as bad as you think it is", starts sounding one-note when their surroundings are.

Perhaps, but that brings back the topic of what "unpopularity" means, like in the unpopular opinions thread.

I say unpopular things and could myself a devil's advocate based on that, but I'm pretty clear about what my stances are.

The ability to truthfully "betray" your own "side" and the mystery of it is an important part of being a devil's advocate. It's not a bad thing to not a devil's advocate, but it's a term that is misused.

Scapegoat or not, the PRC absolutely is burning an increasing amount of fossil fuels.

'Course they are, it's why I also wish the American Right wasn't doubling down on their Bush era policy of ramping up fossil fuel production, neglecting infrastructure and approving basic polices like allowing businesses to deny water-breaks (which killed people this summer).

It's the hypocrisy, it makes it so clear that this is a cynical use of another political group for their own purposes.

Having a clean environmental policy is a better argument against China, if we're going back to the Cold War than genuinely doing better at something than the other guy is more effective than the pot calling the kettle black.

Sounds like shit might go down between Canada and India, as Trudeau is accusing the government of India of assassinating a Sikh leader on Canadian soil in June.

Shit has gone down. The US has thrown their hat in the ring on the side of Canada (or they always were) since they clarified they provided the intelligence from the Five Eye's on the assassination.

India itself hasn't handled this well, they went full "wolf warrior diplomacy" like China does. I also find it funny how many "anti-imperialists" are such hypocrites. First with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and now India has it's own minority clamoring for independence.

@Gilan

I was on vacation to New Orleans so it took me a bit to reply. But here it goes:

There is actually a heavy element of environmentalism among the American Conservatives – just not global warming. The reason largely being is that the solutions proposed for global warming has been antithetical to the political, social, and economic values that many on the conservative right in the US have.
Historically it was American GOP that enacted a lot of the environment policies we enjoy today, through the National Parks, the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and the EPA. And even your most hated George W Bush, created the largest Marine Nature reserve in US history. In addition, the GOP in the early 2000s did seek alternative fuels, largely as a means of making the US more independent from fossil fuels, especially ones imported from abroad. GWB opposed the Kyoto Protocols because he was rightly pointing out that the burden was being placed unfairly on Western Nations rather than India and China. He was, ultimately, correct here, as I will go into a bit further, because it directly addresses certain things you also mentioned.

The problem here is that the issue of Climate Change has become all encompassing issue in environmentalist politics. Of course, if you oppose Climate Change solutions you're going to be viewed as anti-environmentalist, despite your stance on more local ecological issues (cleaner water, agricultural runoff, garbage and pollution, etc). This is where a lot of American Conservatives fall into. Especially in more rural areas, where they focus largely on local ecological issues, and issues that are tangibly visible (pollution, garbage). No one on the conservative aisle is going to look at spilled pollution in their rivers and think "This is a good thing".

In my opinion, making CC all encompassing issue in the environmental movement is to the detriment of environmentalism as a whole. And cynically used by interested parties (including big oil, academia, political activists) for their own good.

Saying that, however, there has always been an element of deep environmentalism among the far right. Hell, even the Nazis held very strong environmental views. In more modern times there has been a regrowth of real far-right eco-fascism. This is a group of largely far-right, neo-nazi adjacent, fascists who view that industrialization, pollution, etc, are all detrimental specifically for the white (European) race, and they first and foremost advocate total shut down of borders, if not total ethnic cleansing of minorities and non-Whites. They strongly believe in depopulation … of non Whites … as a solution to the environmental crisis. They reject Christianity, almost entirely, embrace European pagan imagery, are big supporters of Uncle Ted, and are far more militaristic. You can actually identify them on twitter, with the specific emojis being the sun, the pine tree.

Hell even the Buffalo mass shooter from last year wrote in his manifesto:
“For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs, the left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue.”

Similarly, the New Zealand Christchurch shooter back in 2019, also had similar views, and even used this imagery for his manifesto:

This is a rapidly growing element among the far right, and something almost under-the-radar for the environmental movement as a whole, even when more popular journals like Vox covered it.

I'm going to make a second post:

There is also an eco-fascism that is on the left that is better described as eco-authoritarianism, that is, the idea of putting every political, economic, and social decision into the hands of a single authority to handle climate change. They will never outright admit it, but that is actually what many of the policy solutions are in fact demanding. And it manifests itself incrementally through calls of sacrifice.

Which leads me to the final point. I've brought this up before. The topic of sacrifice. Western Governments, especially in smaller European nations are asking their citizens to make a sacrifice in the name of combating climate change. That's all good and noble, but it is a sacrifice. And every sacrifice must be rewarded with some sort of an end-result. In this case, the promise that you're efforts are going into saving humanity.

Imagine yourself a farmer. You've grown up on this land you now farm, or ranch, your father and his father owned this land. You're tied down to it, and you've made a good living on it. Now imagine your country coming to you and saying you have to reduce your output by 50%, to meet these emission quotas, because we need to save the global environment. Now if the cause was as dire as they make it out to be, you may say "fine, for the good of humanity, I will do that".

But what if there is nothing to show for your sacrifice? What if your contribution to solving the problem has virtually 0 effect? Then the sacrifice is utterly in vain.

And this is what the Kyoto Protocol effectively does. It's also what the fundamental problem of Western Climate Change policy is. So here's the Black Pill on the climate change solutions:

China builds 2 new coal power plants a week in fact, it is building 6 times more new coal power plants than any other country on Earth. What the result of this is that Chinese are building these plants so fast, that any transition by the West is ultimately meaningless

This. Right here. Is the fundamental blind spot of Western Climate policy. By being weak on China, and India (and soon ot be other emerging industrialized nations), anything the West ultimately does is going to have zero effect on Climate Change. It's focus on domestic policy versus international policy (fears of Imperialism and post colonial rhetoric is the culprit here) makes it so they focus on what "my little country can do". So yes, the Dutch farmer that was asked to sacrifice so much so that Netherlands can avoid a catastrophe of sinking into the Sea is going to be meaningless. The Netherlands can go carbon 0, and in the end, they'll still face rising sea levels.

This is also the fundamental problem in the US. These politicians are asking tens of millions of people who's livelihoods depend on resource extractive industries (logging, farming, oil drilling, mining etc) to give all of this up, in some hope that they can save the world, when in the end, every single sacrifice they make is going to be meaningless. On top of the fact that this bright green utopia that is promised (green jobs, green energy, green everything) has not only failed to come to fruition (requires far less people, higher skills and education) but it is also highly dependent on extracting resources that are arguably even more ecologically problematic (where the hell is that electricity going to come from to power your zero emission electric car? Or the cobalt and other rare earths that are needed to build all those solar panels, and batteries?).

And because the West is largely democratic, these people, who have had been asked to make a sacrifice, ultimately can vote.

China, today, produces more than a third of all CO2 emissions in the world. More than twice that of the United States. And it's growing (when US is shrinking). Pakistan and India are rapidly catching up. Alternative energy solutions like hydroelectricity is causing massive geopolitical problems in South East Asia and East Africa, nuclear power has been knee-capped by the environmentalists for 3 decades now, both solar and wind are extremely geography dependent, and also dependent on rare-earth materials that are super toxic to the environment – leading to severe problems in California

Is it no wonder that there is a lot of skepticism about Climate Change solutions? That the only march forward by many in the Western political sphere is towards eco-authoritarianism?

Is it also no wonder that radical solutions from deep green environmentalists on both sides of the political spectrum eventually appear the same – namely depopulation rhetoric, greater authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism?

Ultimately, I ask the following rhetorical question:
Are you willing to support your country going to war with another country to force them to adhere to stricter environmental policy? I.e. Would you support the entirety of the EU to go to war with China, over their emissions?

We hopefully all have our own obligations and lives. Hope you liked New Orleans:

Historically it was American GOP that enacted a lot of the environment policies we enjoy today, through the National Parks, the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and the EPA. And even your most hated George W Bus

I am well aware. 1972 was the start of the US's first environmental framework law and the hey-day of environmental legislation was under Nixon, with 1973 having the Endangered Species Act and 1980 has the Superfund act. The Clean Air Act (CAA) and associated laws resulted in a drastic reduction in air pollution. Emissions have decreased by 50% since 1970.

The Montreal Protocol was probably one of the last successes in Bipartisan efforts on environment. I have no complaints f the Republicans of that time.

No one on the conservative aisle is going to look at spilled pollution in their rivers and think "This is a good thing".

Or on fire, if we're referring to the Cuyahoga fire which is often credited with starting the movement. 'Course, unfortunately, that still doesn't prevent disasters like the East Palestine disaster earlier this year.

And even your most hated George W Bush, created the largest Marine Nature reserve in US history.

He also has education as part of his legacy, and before Afghanistan fell people who tried to rehabilitate part of his "War against Terror" would cite it.

Balancing the scales of good and bad for his legacy, I'd say that his opponent Al Gore had a better plan, especially as ocean's are currently going through mass die offs.

In my opinion, making CC all encompassing issue in the environmental movement is to the detriment of environmentalism as a whole. And cynically used by interested parties (including big oil, academia, political activists) for their own good.

"Big Oil"? The same ones who pumped a lot of money into climate denial during Bush's time, and I recall several scientists being harassed by the Bush administration during that time. De Santis's ban on even mentioning the word is just a pale shadow of that time.

I'd say you're rewriting history, it's like accusing France of fanning hysteria to invade Iraq.

I would be willing to discuss Climate Change with you, seeing as I've had practice of more than a decade from the Bush Era about this. Where does it fall apart for you, from GHG emissions?

[Summary of the Above]

With previous results, I had no problems with the American Right of this time on environment,
If you want to use the credibility of the past, however, than we have to talk about when it breaks down, when the situation became partisan and I push-back on your assertion that it's only Climate Change which the American Right have been delinquent about.

Enforcing changes to the fourth industrial revolution, setting subsidies, cracking down harshly on net polluters and even changing zipcodes to maintain safer cities, irrespective of home owner or real estate developer wants. Go full Malthusian.

None of this is technically about climate change (well tangentially, but it all comes back to it). Let's say I divided other remaining issues in these categories: Air Pollution, Drilling and Extraction, Infrastructure and Planning, Biodiversity and Ecosystems and Toxic Substances and Safety.

In all those different sectors, the last administration rolled back protections

All under a crony EPA, and issues of AQI and selling national park land to mine, lack of any promised infrastructure update (because yes, old infrastructure is more polluting, it's better to update) does not show a record of environmental work.

I'm not talking ideology here, simply work done and failures in stewardship.

Summary: We marche ever forwards

Tell me Chewybunny, are there Nazis in the American Right? Well, there's madmen on every fringe, but are they embraced or shunned like a leper? That has been a thorny topic between us, do you take responsibility for extremists that one's ideology tolerates? Or even refuses to condemn?

We now, I practice something that I have often preached: maintaining group health from extremists: I reject them, I do not find any ideological kin with them. I kick them out when possible, and discredit them for the small group that they are.

It's an issue of credibility and I don't think the above demonstrates enough or any credibility to me. The next section will be a short one about why I think it's an attempt to co-opt.

Personally, I was thinking of Sierra Club types on the American Right, those who threatened to shoot any loggers who cut down any forests, even under Trump. But comparing them to mass shooters is an insult to them.

@Chewybunny

There is also an eco-fascism that is on the left that is better described as eco-authoritarianism, that is, the idea of putting every political, economic, and social decision into the hands of a single authority to handle climate change. They will never outright admit it, but that is actually what many of the policy solutions are in fact demanding. And it manifests itself incrementally through calls of sacrifice.

Reject those lunatics as well. Don't let yourself be defined by the fringe.

Anyway, personally I'd decry this as beating a straw-man that the American Right has made themselves. Decades long campaign of any type of transition or adaption for fear of loss in quality of life. Except that in the different schools of environmental thought, there's another which says that it's now economy vs environment. It's long-term sustainability vs short-term structure.

It's why I mentioned the Fourth Industrial Revolution, new technologies which are not only more efficient but cheaper to maintain and makes us less reliant on dictatorships should be invested in. The issue is like Schumpeter said that cars means horse carriages are going to see a contraction.

The US used to the leader in alternatives forms of energy production (including nuclear) like all environmental legislation. Now? It's lagging behind.

And this is what the Kyoto Protocol effectively does. It's also what the fundamental problem of Western Climate Change policy is

You are referring to the first part on the issues of the Annex I and Annex II countries sections of the Kyoto protocol, where even with all it's China is considered "developing".

I won't dispute that failure, although the idea was to pay/bribe developing nations so they couldn't argue they needed to be polluting. Mutual distrust or the inherent unfeasibility of the entire scheme brought it down, which is following COPs floundered until Paris where they just agreed everyone does their best with enforcement mechanisms.

And we know how that ended up, even a non-committal approach was too much for some.

But what if there is nothing to show for your sacrifice? What if your contribution to solving the problem has virtually 0 effect? Then the sacrifice is utterly in vain.

Of course there's something to show for it !

Didn't you yourself say earlier on that Republicans were more "small-picture" that they were concerned about local effects. Reducing soil exhaustion and runoff, reducing water pollution and emissions (because yes, they have health effects apart from the GHG effect). Reducing energy spent in well-insulated homes and efficient appliances. Those have economic benefits, it doesn't save us from greater environmental effects.

Except, … now I realize a contradiction. Tell me, between "climate change isn't real" and "climate change is impossible to come together as a planet on" which one are you?

Is it also no wonder that radical solutions from deep green environmentalists on both sides of the political spectrum eventually appear the same – namely depopulation rhetoric, greater authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism?

In my experience, radicals are an impediment to environmental solutions not a boon. Distaste for simpler projects and calls for unenforceable action. Especially since many are "late to the ride" what with this being an ignored topic since the 1980's.

If someone refuses to do the bare-minimum policies, but are all for bombs, panic and autocracies than it speaks to me a certain personality type. A tendency particularly pronounced on the internet. It's why I'm starting to go back to syllogisms.

Now I really want you to elaborate on this, because you've painted a picture of inevitable autocracy. How do you square that with a Libertarian ethos? If it's to engage in nihilism, than I don't think it's worth discussing. Doomerism is one thing I have no time for in environment.

China builds 2 new coal power plants a week in fact, it is building 6 times more new coal power plants than any other country on Earth. What the result of this is that Chinese are building these plants so fast, that any transition by the West is ultimately meaningless

Are you willing to support your country going to war with another country to force them to adhere to stricter environmental policy? I.e. Would you support the entirety of the EU to go to war with China, over their emissions?

No, for one reason: war is the most polluting event one can go through. Bombing for the environment has even less credibility than bombing for "freedom". Unless there's some new kind of hybrid war, war will be our fail-state.This isn't just a peacenik declaration. Despite any beliefs, we won't be able to do anything if the economy or innovation collapses. Yes, unlike granola eaters, there are those who believe they are necessary for sustainable development.

China and India? Whether through economic or political measures they have to be convinced otherwise, any success in India "skipping" an industrial step is to be lauded, but any stint in insane leaders put a dent in this plan. Now you know why I despise short term politicians and with all his issues, having Lula instead of Bolsanero for one reduces the risk with the Amazon.

And if China or India decides to be selfish as well? Well than, they'll suffer as we all will (particularly India out of the two with their geography). Same principles apply for the US, it's a question on how humanity will work. It's not a conspiracy, it's a test of whether our current system can solve issues.

It's also why I fundamentally haven't changed my initial point, that this is a co-opting for a cynical purpose because we all know a confrontation with China in some form is in the card. At worst now, it's the ideological degenerated end-point of the American Right, that they are unable to use any tools other than hard power.

A far-cry from what they were in the 1970s.

*Not economy vs environment. It's long-term sustainability vs short-term structure.

Of all the phrases I could make a typo about.

If you think that I am making the case that the right is as keen on environmental policy as the left I am not. Especially in the last few decades. What I am saying that the right isn't interested in Climate Change, and Climate Change is all encompassing of the environmentalism as a whole, which makes it extra difficult for the right to accept major environmental policy, since most of it is focused on climate change policy anyway.

I'm not sure why you've brought up the East Palestine incident. That was a train derailment that created a toxic situation, not a consistent local environmental issue, can you clarify?

>I'd say you're rewriting history, it's like accusing France of fanning hysteria to invade Iraq

No. I'm pointing out that since Climate Change has become an encompassing issue of the environmentalist movement, then there is little to no support from the right, since they largely view that CC is either not real, or not as big of a concern – especially if it means losing out their livelihoods as a result of trying to combat it. I believe making this an encompassing element of the environmental movement as a whole benefits big-oil because it poisons the well for political support for environmentalism from people on the right.

And by the way just because I can explain the "rights" position on this issue doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't. I set all this up as a preface that to combat the idea that the right has always been anti-ecological or anti-environmentalist, and that it is hard for you to envision that someone on the far right could be a deep-green eco-fascist. It was an introduction, and also a way to provide context as to why there is a rise of far-right eco fascism.

>Tell me Chewybunny, are there Nazis in the American Right? Well, there's madmen on every fringe, but are they embraced or shunned like a leper? That has been a thorny topic between us, do you take responsibility for extremists that one's ideology tolerates? Or even refuses to condemn?

I would venture to say that the neo-Nazis in the US would align more with the American Right than they would with the American Left, and would align with American Libertarians and Independents than either. From what I can tell, in almost every major political institution they are shunned like a leper. Unless either side outright supports, or ignores the extremists in their ideologies I don't see how they are responsible. I think it's important to be aware and knowledgeable about the extremists in any ideology and to explicitly condemn them, so, for example, as a staunch Zionist, I think someone like the Lehi Movement was a terrorist organization that did more harm to Zionism than good, and that someone like Ben-Gvir is doing exponentially more harm to Zionism than any good and should have no place in political offices. But I'm not Israeli, so I do not have a real say in the matter. I'm just a Zionist.

While I appreciate that you condemn the authoritarians on the Left, the fact of the matter is that unlike the the radical authoritarians and eco fascists on the right, the far-left does wield considerable more power in many institutions in the US, specifically, and most importantly, in Academia, and the Media (I live near Hollywood, and I work in the entertainment industry – specifically gaming industry, believe me, I know this from anecdotes, and from statistics). This makes it so radical fringe voices on the left aren't particularly viewed the same as they are on the right. They are, in fact, very tolerated, and marginally acceptable. Not only that, when it comes to the environmental movement, many of the extreme activists are put up on a pedestal. Look at someone like Greta Thurnburg, her ideological framework is explicitly authoritarian – she wants the government to have far more power to curb emissions and pollution that it currently has, and is absolutely silent when it comes to emissions from third world, or China. She's a media darling. You cannot sit here and tell me the two are in anyway treated the same.

>Of course there's something to show for it !
What is there to show? You're farmlands are flooded anyway. As a Dutch farmer, what do you have to show for it? You've done everything you can and kneecapped yourself for years so the government can meet it's emission quotas, and in the end it was for nothing.

>Reducing soil exhaustion and runoff, reducing water pollution and emissions (because yes, they have health effects apart from the GHG effect). Reducing energy spent in well-insulated homes and efficient appliances. Those have economic benefits, it doesn't save us from greater environmental effects.

Which is why I said that Climate Change, and to add more context, CO2 emissions, being the encompassing issue is confusing the language here. Absolutely they care about those issues you raised. But they do not connect to Climate Change. While I understand that addressing those issues does impact over all Climate Change policy, the inverse is not necessarily true.

Incidentally, as someone who does give a huge damn about Climate Change, and environmentalism, I strongly believe that messaging towards the right should be switched over to localized, more tangible things, it should primarily focus on what they experience, rather than something as abstract as Climate Change. In fact, I would argue that you would do well to distance CC from Environmentalism as a whole, and focus instead on tangible, localized things that can lead to better outcomes to combat CC.

When it comes to China.
I am willing to bet that the CCP would gladly sacrifice the lives of 2-3 Billion people around the world, to maintain the power that they currently have in China. They will always prioritize China over everyone else. Always and if that means that they need to build 2 coal plants every week, even if 25,000,000 Bangladeshi people drown or are forced to move out, then they will.

The environmental activists out there have not shown any meaningful solution towards the China, India, and developing countries out there.

My god man. Gilan, China produces more CO2 emissions than the entirety of the Europe (including Russia) and US combined. Asia, as a continent is now producing 54% of all CO2 emissions, and growing. The US is reducing so rapidly we are at 1990 levels of emissions. Europe too.

I do not forsee any meaningful solution offered. I do not see how soft-power can change this. Sanctions, political ostracization, etc, I don't see how it's going to stop this.

To clarify my rationale why authoritarianism is inevitable.

The international "left" effectively "owns" the environmentalist issue, and specifically Climate Change is mostly a left wing cause.

In any Democracy, of whatever kind, for any meaningful political action to be taken, there needs to be a relatively broad coalition of people on the left and right to support it.

If the left wants to tackle the issue of Climate Change on a governmental level, then they have to convince the right to support those policies.

If the left decides that they don't need political consensus and will do it on their own, by definition they are eschewing the democratic norms, and are forced to become effectively more authoritarian.

If the left wants to build this coalition of political support they need to understand why the right is so hesitant, or outright hostile, to their policy solutions. They need to understand how the consequences of their policies are going to primarily affect the right.

They also need to understand the limits of those policies on a domestic level, and the cost vs benefit is.

It is on that side of the political, ideological side, to build the consensus, to reach out, to make a case. Because they own the issue. They need to co-own the issue for it to be any way successful.

The Montreal Protocols had little affect on the lives of everyday people, and had broad support from people in democratic states, and thus it was a relative support.

The left's current solutions towards climate change do not factor in the cost to those that are most affected by those solutions. They do not in anyway factor the overall impact of those solutions (The Netherlands account for 0.46% of all global emissions of CO2, they can go down to 0, and it would have virtually NO affect on slowing down Climate Change, and it's consequences.)

Focusing on farmers, loggers, miners, drillers, etc, in countries that produce less than 1% of all emissions in the world is NOT going to solve a damn thing. We need the top 5 to be the main focus: China, US, India, Russia and Japan.

And within those countries, especially in US and Japan since they are far more democratic, there needs to be solutions that have the least impact on individual people, as possible. There needs to be a broad political consensus.

Those top 5 countries produce 57% of all CO2 emissions. If we can reduce that by half it would do more than what the vast majority of the world can do, even if the rest of the world goes net 0.

So re-evaluate your own hostility towards the people on the American Right. Re-evaluate your own hostility towards the people most resistant to policy in your country (although, France only emits 0.94% of CO2 global emissions because you guys GOT YOUR NUCLEAR SHIT TOGETHER).

The CC activists need to really rethink how they going about the solutions in democracies. Unfortunately I don't see them wanting to reach out, nor do I see them even eager to take any of these steps at all. It's a march towards power and authority.

How is this for example, going to solve the issue here?

Thank you for the replies Chewybunny. I'll try to consolidate repeated points, but tell me if I miss an important point of yours.

If you think that I am making the case that the right is as keen on environmental policy as the left I am not. Especially in the last few decades.

To be blunt, I can see that. 1970's EPA Republicans and the assorted Rangers, Hunters, Fishers and Wildmen of the US I can respect. The fucking neo-nazis (and hopefully I don't have to quibble with you what the Black Sun is) I will not, and they're such an anti-example that it confirmed negative stereotypes of the American Right.

Seriously, why did you bring them up? Was there no better contemporary examples for the American Right? Like De Santis's "ad" it hurts the image of the American Right more than anything else. I mean, if it's the bottom explanation:

And by the way just because I can explain the "rights" position on this issue doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't. I set all this up as a preface that to combat the idea that the right has always been anti-ecological or anti-environmentalist, and that it is hard for you to envision that someone on the far right could be a deep-green eco-fascist. It was an introduction, and also a way to provide context as to why there is a rise of far-right eco fascism.

When I say a lot of things about the American Right, assume that they're relatively current ( I mention Bush a lot of after all). Also, the far-right are wackjobs whose idea of environmental health are insane quasi-mystic nonsense. The context is a rise in theocratic, extremism and superstitious nonsense and I think I've made it quite clear I'm very well aware of that.

I'm not an environmentalist for some "earth mother" or even less for the insanity of the far-right, I'm doing it because it's rational !

I'm not sure why you've brought up the East Palestine incident. That was a train derailment that created a toxic situation, not a consistent local environmental issue, can you clarify?

I'll clarify on my side:

East Palestine was not just an accident, it was mixture of company greed, exhausted workers, crushed unions, lack of regulations, media indifference, agency opacity and general callousness & apathy. Both the initial incident, and the follow-up (or lack of it).

That is a systemic and environnemental issue, it's not just climate change.

So yes, the Dutch farmer that was asked to sacrifice so much so that Netherlands can avoid a catastrophe of sinking into the Sea is going to be meaningless. The Netherlands can go carbon 0, and in the end, they'll still face rising sea levels.

What I am saying that the right isn't interested in Climate Change, and Climate Change is all encompassing of the environmentalism as a whole, which makes it extra difficult for the right to accept major environmental policy, since most of it is focused on climate change policy anyway.

The Dutch are building sea-walls and other infrastructure in preparation. Do you think that's not useful? What has Florida done?

(Technically Florida as a peninsula can't have the same anti-flooding infrastructure, it only moves water away and while that works for the Netherlands, it doesn't work for peninsula's or islands either, but you get the gist of it).

The far-left does wield considerable more power in many institutions in the US, specifically, and most importantly, in Academia, and the Media (I live near Hollywood, and I work in the entertainment industry – specifically gaming industry, believe me, I know this from anecdotes, and from statistics).

Both "sides" of the US both say the same thing.

I tend to see the foreign policy side of the US, so forgive me for the recency bias if after Bush I don't particularly any stock in the underdog narrative the American Right have for themselves. They said the same thing when strong-arming others under Trump as well.

Can I point out that last year it's been bannings of books, abortion, child labour laws and who knows what else? Who's actually affecting change here?

Academia? Debatable of the US, their APA are torturers and they're a 50-50 on economics, environment and medicine. Video-games & Hollywood? Okay, there I give you the point, but I think it's petty in the grand-scheme of things.

Entertainment is also one of the things the US does well in comparison to the rest of the world.

Rest of the Quotes on Climate Change

Incidentally, as someone who does give a huge damn about Climate Change, and environmentalism, I strongly believe that messaging towards the right should be switched over to localized, more tangible things, it should primarily focus on what they experience, rather than something as abstract as Climate Change. In fact, I would argue that you would do well to distance CC from Environmentalism as a whole, and focus instead on tangible, localized things that can lead to better outcomes to combat CC.

No. The Right has failed to address issues even in areas where they have complete electoral control. This is an excuse and cuts directly to my complaint of the American Right as not only an ideology, but as basic stewards.

They couldn't even rebuild the electrical grid in Texas, and that was killing hundreds of people two-times a year, until they finally asked the Feds for cash !

They need to take self-responsibly to have their own locus of control, because here's my own "black-pill" on the environment (if you can forgive me, and I can forgive myself for using that term): We're not all making our way out of this.

Too much work, too much costs, we don't and we can't wait for those lag behind. The American Right and it's constituents want to continue working towards a new dust-bowl and the desertification of the interior? I can't stop them anymore than China ! India can't afford to not care, since they're right in the worst areas in the globe for the wet light-bulb effect effect,so I'm less worried of them than China.

[Soft Power & the American Right]

In the second post I promise to address the China bit, but that means I have to fully exorcise everything on my feelings of the American Right.

So re-evaluate your own hostility towards the people on the American Right.

So first, I'll evaluate, although I'd like to point out this isn't hostility. This isn't my feelings towards a Chinese or Russian Nationalist (where there it's kill or be killed). This isn't even the golden rule of reciprocity, because it's not even to the level of hostile actions that the American Right have hurled "my" way in terms of France, the EU and Europe as a whole.

It's dislike, and more than that, it's lack of trust. In terms of self-awareness at most, you're asking me of using soft power on the American Right, which you consider a lost cause on China.

Why? Because you think that the American Right are more trustworthy, friends, more useful and more reasonable? They only have being a democracy working for them at this point (barely), and listening to them you wouldn't think they're a democracy. One of my earliest responses here was confirmation that pissing off others was a popular move for the American Right !

Even the Democrats have taken over being the military-arm with the Ukraine War, and they're increasingly conservative in finance and in "realpolitik". What do the American Right even bring to the table, beyond my personal like and dislike? I'm not asking for sacrifice with my views on environment, but even basic "win-win" policies are like pulling teeth !

Specifically in environment, they have insane conspiracy theories (so the amount of effort is high), they have a limited industrial base, limited funding compare to the coast. I'm not thinking like a politician or activist here, this is pure project management to raise funds.

Where's the reciprocity, why is it always all take and no give in terms of having to persuade them?

Seriously Chewybunny, I'm happy to debate with you, but I need to make it clear just how little soft-power the American Right has, if they dismiss the concept it's because they're torched their own stock.