U.S. Politics: Dining on Doritos with Derrida and Donald

[The Anti-Targ]

17 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Well, if there are American Greens who use this as a justification to say "whatever" in distinguishing between Republicans and Democrats, what reason does the Green Party have to even exist?

I mean, if 2000 was our last, best chance and we blew it, then the entire Green Party movement is a waste of time isn't it?  We should just all kick back and watch the hellscape roll in.

That would be defeatist. The key things to start thinking about and planning for are how are we going to get through the hellscape with maximum survivability, what are our approaches to energy and food production going to be in order to create a more sustainable civilization that comes out the other end. This is going to be a short term (geological time) shock to the system, but there will still be a civilization to manage for several millennia to come.

Elon Musk's Planet B plan is not an option, since the hellscape will be here long before anyone can independently live on Mars, and the vast majority of people will still be living on Earth, so Planet B does nothing at all to alleviate the suffering of billions that's on the cards, and potentially makes things worse if billions of dollars millions of hours and tonnes of resource get pumped into a project that will benefit a negligible percent of the population. It could be that Mars habitability science helps to create solutions for dealing with the climate catastrophe we are facing. But I'd much rather that climate catastrophe survival science helps to create solutions for Mars habitability.

[Kalbear]

To be fair to Musk, his vision of life on Mars has little to do with alleviating suffering and more to do with avoiding a planetwide extinction-level event. It isn't meant to ease any issues; most of his other work (Tesla, Powerbank, solarcity) is. 

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That would be defeatist. The key things to start thinking about and planning for are how are we going to get through the hellscape with maximum survivability, what are our approaches to energy and food production going to be in order to create a more sustainable civilization that comes out the other end. This is going to be a short term (geological time) shock to the system, but there will still be a civilization to manage for several millennia to come.

Elon Musk's Planet B plan is not an option, since the hellscape will be here long before anyone can independently live on Mars, and the vast majority of people will still be living on Earth, so Planet B does nothing at all to alleviate the suffering of billions that's on the cards, and potentially makes things worse if billions of dollars millions of hours and tonnes of resource get pumped into a project that will benefit a negligible percent of the population. It could be that Mars habitability science helps to create solutions for dealing with the climate catastrophe we are facing. But I'd much rather that climate catastrophe survival science helps to create solutions for Mars habitability.

You realize that Americans rejected the idea of the simple changes which could have made a difference because it might have cut into their billionaire overlords' profit margins right?

If you think JBF is gonna let humanity start down the path towards survival before undermining it then you need to put the fiction down.

Humanity will survive. It will not be because we all pull together and make the tough choices. It will be because we are an adaptable species.

[Martell Spy]

Laura Ingraham’s Anti-Immigrant Rant Was So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader David Duke

https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-duke-praises-laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-one-of-the-most-important-monologues-in-history?ref=home

Minutes later, Duke tweeted praise for Ingraham.

Quote

“One of the most important (truthful) monologues in the history of MSM,” he wrote above a clip of Ingraham’s rant. He later deleted the tweet.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair to Musk, his vision of life on Mars has little to do with alleviating suffering and more to do with avoiding a planetwide extinction-level event. It isn't meant to ease any issues; most of his other work (Tesla, Powerbank, solarcity) is. 

That's true. But it feels like he's tending toward putting more effort into the less urgent/immediate threat. And the reality is there's unlikely to be any genuine extinction level event coming from "out there". Humanity could suffer a 90% population decline over a short space of time from some catastrophe, but it will still carry on as an Earth bound species.

16 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You realize that Americans rejected the idea of the simple changes which could have made a difference because it might have cut into their billionaire overlords' profit margins right?

If you think JBF is gonna let humanity start down the path towards survival before undermining it then you need to put the fiction down.

Humanity will survive. It will not be because we all pull together and make the tough choices. It will be because we are an adaptable species.

Yes, I think we're beyond pulling together until something globally disastrous hits. But we will be forced together by events, and the more prepared people can be for that eventuality (even if not working in any meaningfully collective sense) the better.

At the moment everyone capable of reading our reality is seeing the tsunami headed our way, but we're standing on the beach watching instead of grabbing our survival kits and heading to higher ground. 

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Laura Ingraham’s Anti-Immigrant Rant Was So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader David Duke

https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-duke-praises-laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-one-of-the-most-important-monologues-in-history?ref=home

Well, it may turn out to be one of the most important monologues in history. Just not in the way David Duke is hoping. The dog whistles are disappearing, and the racists are emboldened to speak in tones everyone can hear loud and clear. That is a pivotal moment in race relations in the USA.

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, it may turn out to be one of the most important monologues in history. Just not in the way David Duke is hoping. The dog whistles are disappearing, and the racists are emboldened to speak in tones everyone can hear loud and clear. That is a pivotal moment in race relations in the USA.

I wonder if anyone will actually notice this latest momentous event. When I think of the American consciousness re: bigotry, I am reminded of ‘How to Boil a Frog.’

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's true. But it feels like he's tending toward putting more effort into the less urgent/immediate threat. And the reality is there's unlikely to be any genuine extinction level event coming from "out there". Humanity could suffer a 90% population decline over a short space of time from some catastrophe, but it will still carry on as an Earth bound species.

Yes, I think we're beyond pulling together until something globally disastrous hits. But we will be forced together by events, and the more prepared people can be for that eventuality (even if not working in any meaningfully collective sense) the better.

At the moment everyone capable of reading our reality is seeing the tsunami headed our way, but we're standing on the beach watching instead of grabbing our survival kits and heading to higher ground. 

 

So... what is it exactly you're advocating? Build a bomb shelter? Canned food? Go for the Geothermal pump?

The thing about the collapse of a society is that all of the preparation in the world isn't going to get you through it. It'll 'help' as far as providing marginal comfort, but either the plateau of advancement will be relatively indistinguishable from past life so long as you're in the right place/right time or it will be so apocalyptic that hoarding food and energy will not save you in any meaningful sense. 

At some point you have to ask what kind of life you want to live if shit gets truly nasty.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Ah, here's the report.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/#in-march-2018-modest-gender-gap-in-views-of-trump-among-supporters

And this has pretty charts!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/09/new-data-makes-it-clear-nonvoters-handed-trump-the-presidency/?utm_term=.de730c0c866f

So his biggest base of support is from people 70 and older.  Not surprising.  It's also good news IMO.  They'll likely be in the ground soon.

[The Anti-Targ]

20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So... what is it exactly you're advocating? Build a bomb shelter? Canned food? Go for the Geothermal pump?

The thing about the collapse of a society is that all of the preparation in the world isn't going to get you through it. It'll 'help' as far as providing marginal comfort, but either the plateau of advancement will be relatively indistinguishable from past life so long as you're in the right place/right time or it will be so apocalyptic that hoarding food and energy will not save you in any meaningful sense. 

At some point you have to ask what kind of life you want to live if shit gets truly nasty.

Mostly nothing physical or technical, though those things can help. Creating more caring and sharing societies is what's best for getting us through whatever impending doom we're going to face. I think we see at a smaller scale whenever disaster strikes the communities that help each other get through survive and recover much better than communities that take an every person for them-self approach.

On a completely different topic, Good Morning America recently did a segment on Manuka honey. I don't normally get into my professional capacity at a technical level here, but if anyone saw this segment you should know that there is significant mis-information in that segment. I won't provide the link, because I don't regard it as being helpful at all so I don't want to spread the mis-information. But if you did see it and want to know why it is misleading hit me up with a PM.

[Rippounet]

40 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, it may turn out to be one of the most important monologues in history. Just not in the way David Duke is hoping. The dog whistles are disappearing, and the racists are emboldened to speak in tones everyone can hear loud and clear. That is a pivotal moment in race relations in the USA.

It's interesting that Ingraham was attacking Ocasio-Cortez. 

This makes the choice between race war and class war quite clear. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Fine, I'll bite and defend the Greens (although the American Green Party is a bit difficult to defend, when you look at their latest tickets).

Anyway, I think the idea is to give green ideas a broader stage and to get them into the public discourse. Or let me phrase it another way. Do you think Green/enviromental ideas would've found their way into the programmes of the Democrats without a Green Party, or what they give as many fucks as the GOP about the enviroment? 

 

To answer the second part of this, I think the Greens have had exactly zero impact on policy making in this country. Even worse, if it is the case that the Green party has effected, or will effect the outcome of elections by siphoning votes away from democratic candidates, then the net impact on actual policy making is negative.

And yes, there is obviously a difference between Democrats and republicans on environmental issues.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

20 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

To answer the second part of this, I think the Greens have had exactly zero impact on policy making in this country. Even worse, if it is the case that the Green party has effected, or will effect the outcome of elections by siphoning votes away from democratic candidates, then the net impact on actual policy making is negative.

And yes, there is obviously a difference between Democrats and republicans on environmental issues.

 

I still maintain that it's debatable as to whether the philosophical / ideological / policy differences have translated into any really meaningful outcomes. Though that may be as much the vagaries of political cycles which limit the ability for difficult changes with challenging implementation demands to be put into effect. Systemic issues relating to the complications of state and federal governance needing to align to have maximum benefit is another factor. And there is also inertia within the Democratic party for making big changes.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I still maintain that it's debatable as to whether the philosophical / ideological / policy differences have translated into any really meaningful outcomes. Though that may be as much the vagaries of political cycles which limit the ability for difficult changes with challenging implementation demands to be put into effect. Systemic issues relating to the complications of state and federal governance needing to align to have maximum benefit is another factor. And there is also inertia within the Democratic party for making big changes.

The leader of the Green party disagrees with you.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/jill-stein-reacts-to-trumps-possible-paris-accord-withdrawal

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The leader of the Green party disagrees with you.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/jill-stein-reacts-to-trumps-possible-paris-accord-withdrawal

I'm confused. What is that scorpion woman's rambling supposed to say or whatever?

D's and R's are all the same? Or the opposite? Or a whole lot of nothing?

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

At the moment everyone capable of reading our reality is seeing the tsunami headed our way, but we're standing on the beach watching instead of grabbing our survival kits and heading to higher ground. 

pfft, most of the problem is the democrat's experts have gotten in the way and put up continual roadblocks to action  "We can't do anything about carbon emissions because cows fart! all our scientists say so, ergo any thing we do is not worth doing".

with friends like that who needs republicans?

When your side spends decades arguing about what the most efficient, most perfect, most market friendly policy and you get nothing because you're so busy compromising with yourself over diddly details, you never accomplished any actions in the first place, well you shot yourself in your own damn foot with your compromising and perfect policy paper of platitudes.

Hammers work better than scalpels here, but democrats never even picked up either tool because they got sidetracked and stuck arguing the merits of chopsticks or forks for their baby kale salad at their climate fundraiser, and for half an hour before the cocktail hour there's supposed to be a panel on hammers or scalpels, but most people forgot to attend, because they wanted to pregame cocktail hour before the bar got busy.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

pfft, most of the problem is the democrat's experts have gotten in the way and put up continual roadblocks to action  "We can't do anything about carbon emissions because cows fart! all our scientists say so, ergo any thing we do is not worth doing".

with friends like that who needs republicans?

When your side spends decades arguing about what the most efficient, most perfect, most market friendly policy and you get nothing because you're so busy compromising with yourself over diddly details, you never accomplished any actions in the first place, well you shot yourself in your own damn foot with your compromising and perfect policy paper of platitudes.

Hammers work better than scalpels here, but democrats never even picked up either tool because they got sidetracked and stuck arguing the merits of chopsticks or forks for their baby kale salad at their climate fundraiser, and for half an hour before the cocktail hour there's supposed to be a panel on hammers or scalpels, but most people forgot to attend, because they wanted to pregame cocktail hour before the bar got busy.

The thing about ruminant eructations is that you are not adding a single atom of carbon to the global carbon cycle. Therefore you don't need to take ruminants out of the system, you just need to keep the numbers steady or have a slow rate of increase. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

40 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm confused. What is that scorpion woman's rambling supposed to say or whatever?

D's and R's are all the same? Or the opposite? Or a whole lot of nothing?

Regardless of it's overall effect, It would seem that Jill Stein strongly prefers remaining committed to the Paris accord.  Obama  negotiated it.  Clinton would have honored her predecessors commitment.  Trump response was "Burn baby, burn"

I would say that satisfies the standard for a "meaningful outcome" referenced in The Anti-Targ's previous post.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That would be defeatist. The key things to start thinking about and planning for are how are we going to get through the hellscape with maximum survivability, what are our approaches to energy and food production going to be in order to create a more sustainable civilization that comes out the other end. This is going to be a short term (geological time) shock to the system, but there will still be a civilization to manage for several millennia to come.

This is defeatist.  Go the green party's website and read their platform.  It doesn't read like a group devising ways to resurrect the corpse of humanity after the apocalypse.

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Elon Musk's Planet B plan is not an option, since the hellscape will be here long before anyone can independently live on Mars, and the vast majority of people will still be living on Earth, so Planet B does nothing at all to alleviate the suffering of billions that's on the cards, and potentially makes things worse if billions of dollars millions of hours and tonnes of resource get pumped into a project that will benefit a negligible percent of the population. It could be that Mars habitability science helps to create solutions for dealing with the climate catastrophe we are facing. But I'd much rather that climate catastrophe survival science helps to create solutions for Mars habitability.

Evacuating a significant chunk of the human race to Mars is just a fucking dumb idea.  As others have pointed out, even if the technical and economic blocks are removed, It would still be easier and more productive to terraform a post apocalyptic Earth than Mars.  You would save a lot more people and it would require a lot less Rocket fuel as well. 

Remember Musk's Rescue submarine?  This is even dumber.

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So... what is it exactly you're advocating? Build a bomb shelter? Canned food? Go for the Geothermal pump?

The thing about the collapse of a society is that all of the preparation in the world isn't going to get you through it. It'll 'help' as far as providing marginal comfort, but either the plateau of advancement will be relatively indistinguishable from past life so long as you're in the right place/right time or it will be so apocalyptic that hoarding food and energy will not save you in any meaningful sense. 

At some point you have to ask what kind of life you want to live if shit gets truly nasty.

This is overly pessimistic. Take a look at the history of the US: there have been plenty of turbulent times and the country is still here. In addition to the Civil War (which everyone knows about), we've had, for example, a truly bizarre contested election decided by an ad hoc Electoral Commission (WTF?) and if you think law enforcement is too violent today, check out what they were up to a century ago.

With regard to the Ingraham & Co.: this is hardly unexpected. The government, corporations and universities have pursued a course of official and unofficial discrimination against white Americans (and to some extent also Asians, but the latter are a relatively small minority) for several decades now. It was only a matter of time until a significant fraction of white Americans stopped listening to the justifications for this discrimination and decided to fight back. At the moment, the pro-discrimination people still control most of the media and are demonizing the people fighting back, but the tide is slowly turning. And yes, there's a kernel of truth at the heart of the demonization: a small fraction of the people being demonized are indeed affiliated with certain unsavory ideologies and, as always, there's a small chance that this conflict grows into something that will wreck society or at least cause significant perturbations -- but it's far more likely that we'll simply come to a new equilibrium, just like the US always has (except for that one time in the 1860s).

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Regardless of it's overall effect, It would seem that Jill Stein strongly prefers remaining committed to the Paris accord.  Obama  negotiated it.  Clinton would have honored her predecessors commitment.  Trump response was "Burn baby, burn"

I would say that satisfies the standard for a "meaningful outcome" referenced in The Anti-Targ's previous post.

 

No it doesn't - it's just proof that voting for Jill Stein was a waste if you want a meaningful policy outcome.  Instead of the Paris Accords you got jack shit.