Jump to content

ck

Huntington Tower 330'
  • Content Count

    583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ck

    Global Warming

    I lean towards Gramarye's argument but don't have data to back it up. I'm not sure GCrites has data either, so it's a hard argument to have. I will say, though, that Amazon pioneered cloud computing and that is eminently more environmentally friendly than decentralized (i.e. less efficient) computing.
  2. ck

    Global Warming

    Well, as you know, you multiply impact and probability to get a risk calculation. A 10% probability (although I think that number is just an example) may still be a top priority if the impact is the entire world ends. And as far as the solutions - i don't think anyone is disputing reducing green house gases is useful and in fact a bunch of countries actually agreed to do this - the 2015 Paris agreements.
  3. ck

    Global Warming

    That's been my take as well. The right tends to give a mouthpiece to the most radical ideas from the left (or cherry pick) so as to point to them and say they're nutz and fear mongering. Then the right can just ignore it and be content. The left does this towards the right often too - typically on social issues instead of environmental though. Probably part of why we've been stuck doing nothing major for the last 10 years.
  4. Ha! The way you have to twist everything to fit into the worldview you want is spectacular! Because everyone knows people who rigorously exercise are only doing so because they would die otherwise - lol I really am laughing over what you wrote.
  5. ck

    Global Warming

    This article really stretched things in my opinion. Remember Al Gore? I don't think there's ever been an environmentalist (except Teddy Roosevelt maybe) the deniers haven't lampooned. Trying to tie it into misogyny doesn't seem applicable or needed. Just another thing we're doing to further divide people (i.e. If you are a human-caused-global-warming skeptic then you probably are a misogynist too).
  6. I'm a bit confused by the Amazon fires - I'm reading conflicting accounts of the severity and uniqueness. I can't find all the sources I've seen over the last few days, but the takeaway was that it's at an elevated level if you only compare to last year or the last 5-6 years, but over the last 15 years the fires are a little below average. I'm honestly confused if I'm missing something or if we're just getting caught up in one of these cycles where things get distorted? Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amazon-rainforest-on-fire-2019/
  7. First, AOC isn't the president and doesn't have nearly as much power in her current role. 2nd, she's not nearly as nasty as Trump. 3rd, yes I disagree with a lot of what she says and think her lack of experience shows - I don't think she's anything like Trump though outside of a passing similarity in using convenient 'facts' at times.
  8. I agree with Brutus. It's not something that rises to the level of national discourse. Bad behavior is constantly happening, we only show/highlight the behavior that we see as beneficial to our narrative and I would guess it typically distorts the relevancy to the overall narrative and the context of the actual bad behavior.
  9. I don't buy that - I think Trump has plenty of enemies opponents that can win even if they engage with him publicly. The sample size we have to go by isn't enough to make these types of sweeping claims that he will always win if this or that is done. To be fair, I don't think you engage with him the same way he does to you because you're looking to differentiate, but I do think he can be engaged on the facts successfully. For some reason we keep talking like he won the popular vote, has strong polling, isn't teetering on people trying to impeach him every day... This administration is not strong, but they do have the Senate Republicans backing them up which allowed them to get a fixer in the DOJ and so it's been prolonged. But I think it's not accurate to say they win win win.
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-27JjJk-I That's the Economist's brief take, and I agree with it overall. They state identity politics probably aren't going away; the challenge is how to make it constructive instead of destructive, inclusive instead of exclusive. It's something I think a lot of the loudest people seem to be stuck on - attacking and re-framing arguments and ideas into their own narratives. That will not lead to a constructive dialog.
  11. Eh, maybe, I'll think about that. But are you arguing the point about the way many of us ingest media is distorting our perspectives? In no way do I think Trump is normal, but in my time I've seen how issues/perspectives can get warped very quickly and how when you don't directly experience an issue, reading about it through other people/media's lenses can exacerbate the perspective differences. We get a ton of our information through a 280 character limited medium, there is no way we are going to have full context and a holistic perspective through that. It's important to understand that.
  12. This is important, thanks for the reminder. It's the same thing that people on the right need to think about when they get worked up over how the lefties are destroying everything. I asked my dad this same question a year ago and I think it made him think a little. For all the outrage we have from watching our choice of media, reading twitter, or browsing forums, our own personal lives probably haven't changed that much in the aggregate. My dad wasn't actually affected by safe spaces on college campuses, didn't know anyone affected by them, never experienced it in person, but is super worked up about them - weird. The internet or any media portal will distort your perception. It condenses the entire world into soundbites and clips. I don't know anyone who is immune to it. The very nature of news (reporting on exceptions to the norm) makes you think the norm is falling apart because all you ever hear about are the exceptions. There is no news for the mundane. Sure, there will be examples of things that don't go right, but I feel like we exacerbate the problems greatly with the attention we give to them and how we distort context. E.g. Yes Trump's rhetoric indirectly likely led to the El Paso shooting; however, mass shootings have been on the rise for more than a decade and it wasn't because of Trump. It's probably got a lot more to do with all the attention we give to them and the glamorization and the perpetrator's condensed/warped/biased world view predicated on the media he consumed.
  13. Ya... i mean come on, he's just leading himself into losing arguments. No way is this person being genuine lol
  14. late reply, sorry, but ya just take the delta then of the typical student debt interest vs when bernie said something and compare to the maximum values of war and bailouts. Really the point the person was making doesn't seem valid at all. Of course immediately after someone proposes something major there will be interest, but in the aggregate, it's nowhere close to the interest that was around for the other topics. That is lost on someone who lives in twitter cycles, though, because things that are available to them now seem to hold greater weight. Sorry, it was just annoying to me, not a big deal at all - except in the sense I hope we all can understand how we get things distorted with our new social mediums. Edit-- eh, maybe there is something there, idk guess we'd have to really dig into volume... I just added bernie as a search term and he eclipsed them all by a long shot. Maybe people aren't as interested in war and bailouts as much as bernie and student debt. Good/bad/both...
×
×
  • Create New...