BF2S Forums DAST Chat

uziq wrote:

it’s funny to me that everyone talks about how climate change is some rabid radical Left idea and meanwhile the trump administration is literally gutting and de-funding anything to do with climate science or natural preservation. not to mention the extreme proximity that exists and traditionally has existed between big business oil corps, koch brothers, etc, and official state apparatuses. but i guess it’s the spooky shadowy Left who are politicising this issue to their own ideological ends.

like compare the single contribution, impact and influence of the koch guy who died recently after his lifetime of political activity, measure its impact on the planet ... but, shit guys, these dangerous communists are really fucking us with their sinister green agendas!!!

it’s almost like the right wing haven’t been plenty motivated to discredit climate change, anyway, what with their immense vested interests. no, it’s the left who are doing so much to harm the reputation of green policies! not like the right haven’t been funding thinktanks and putting out climate change denialism for years and years ... let’s blame the hippies. they’ve pushed us to this! they’re taking it too far!

obviously it's annoying to be lectured by sanctimonious celebrities. and holy sects of green acolytes who want us all to wear hemp and worship gaia can raise an eyebrow or two. but it's not like green agendas cannot be integrated with centrist politics. labour in the UK just committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2030. of course, this involves nationalising the energy sector, or large parts of it, to achieve this aim -- as you said, we need dirigisme, not free-market hidden hands. but it's a long way from growing dreadlocks and crying over the rainforest.

bongggg

You use more words but what you're saying is literally a regurgitation of every left leaning conspiracy theory meme on facebook about the topic. Larson and Dilbert are both right.

Last edited by Jay (2019-09-28 12:37:04)

This isn't the first time they've used children. NYC schools just allowed every child to walk out of school on a Friday and march through the city as long as they marched on behalf of climate change.

Or this video where kids stormed into Senator Diane Feinstein's office and demanded that she vote for the Green New Deal.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1099075460649107458

From a personal standpoint, I think climate change is real, and is an issue, but I don't think the consequences are so dire or so immediate that we won't be able to adapt over time. We're talking about consequences that will take place over centuries, not years or days. The world isn't ending in 11 years. Some people have been whipped up into an absolute hysteria and are in despair to the point of depression about the issue because people have done an absolutely wonderful job scaremongering young adults, the types that haven't lived through past world crisis' full of dire warning and portents for the end of the world.

I don't really blame these people for latching onto these ideas. People, especially younger adults, are always seeking meaning in their lives. They want a cause to believe in or a fight to take part in. It's natural. People have abandoned religion, which used to fill this hole in the soul and they're having kids later in life, which, trust me from experience, absolutely fills you with a sense of purpose and a reason for living.

The problem, which none of you seem to get, is that this issue, if it is so dire, can't be centrally planned away. All of your solutions depend on massive expansions of government and regulation and the micromanagement of the lives of every soul on this planet. To get what you want we'd have to have a global war. This is why the left have attached themselves to the issue. The true believers see it as the chance to finally bring about Soviet-style rational planning on a global scale, with income redistribution thrown in to-boot. This is why people thumb their nose at climate change activists, not because they are assholes who are in the pocket of the Koch brothers (RIP), but because we've seen this before. The Green movement has always been the Red movement in disguise.

uziq wrote:

how am i spouting conspiracy theory by talking about extremely famous political lobbyists and yet you think you are talking sense when you say things like 'this isn't the first time they've used children'. lmao wtf.

and no, kids don't think the world is going to end in 11 years. they are not hysterical. they are pissed that we are going to leave the world in a MUCH worse state than they found it. mass refugee crises are not good for economic or political stability. a relatively small number of war refugees from the middle-east have changed domestic policies and the tone of debate in many european countries; times that by 10 to imagine the numbers of climate refugees people will soon be encountering. i'm sure rich northern hemisphere farmers will love it when equatorial pests and diseases turn up in their crops, too. again, nobody is saying that the world is going to end in 11 years. we are just screwing the pooch and passing it on to the next generation.

it's funny because, in terms of generational conflict, youth have rebelled against their elders before for much less grievous injuries. 'we can't afford to own homes!' but if a bunch of children are concerned about the future of the climate, they must be mindwashed abuse victims because of 'the international left'.

Alexandria Occasio-Cortez wrote:

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Ocasio-Cortez told Coates. "This is the war — this is our World War II."

From a sitting member of the House of Representatives. She has millions of followers on social media. Her proposed solution was the Green New Deal that I quoted a few pages back. She's the face of the green movement in America right now.

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not. Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.

uziq wrote:

well, as dilbert said above, making a globally significant issue into another ‘git yer gub’mint outta my yard’ is really quite inane, in my opinion.

every political issue in america boils down to statism vs freedom until, of course, you want a free college education, or a job for boeing, or farming subsidies, or tariffs to make your manufacturing competitive ... yeah, really convincing.

Oh, Trump is a moron. I thought this was established already. At least his imbecility is easily undone. Clinton would've made lasting damage.

They did a better job when they started describing every government effort as an extension of the DMV and the services received there.

uziq wrote:

there’s enough money to be made in renewables and new technologies for ‘the green dollar’ to ever be monopolised by the far left. you sound hysterical. lots of capitalists who think the answer to the current predicament is more tech, more capitalism...

but yes it doesn’t really seem so radical or mad to conclude that consumerism has had its day in the sun and people should start structuring their lives around things other than accumulation and buying new shit all the time. the culture has to change (and doctrinaire marxians naturally believe that cultural superstructure follows economic base ...). but that’s not necessarily the future of climate change.

i don’t think greta’s ‘we will never forgive you’ is leftist indignation. it’s a generation accusing the current elders of rank hypocrisy and inaction. books might be written about a future without work and with climate change, and lots of them might look to the left for a readymade framework of answers, but i don’t see extinction rebellion as a mouthpiece of leftism?

one would think that scientists do not publish politically and would not want their work to be interpreted as such, either.

I see hysteria in the 'we'll never forgive you' and the 'you've taken my childhood' rhetoric honestly. It's agressively sour and based on a strongly held belief that no issue on the political agenda should ever take precedence over climate change. It's a tunnel-vision to radicalism. What I take issue with alongside that is that the politics of climate/green centric parties does often have notes on capitalism being one of the problems at cause for our current predicament. I don't agree that consumerism and non wasteful or non polluting means of production/transportation are or need to be mutually exclusive (on the contrary on the wasteful part, actually). Moreover I don't consider the top down enforcement of cultural change and a destruction of the current global economic system as necessary, at all.

As a consequence climate science seems to be veering off from broad political acceptance as right wing conservatives focus their arguments on the understanding that climate policy on the left is used as a guise to destroy capitalism, which was exactly the tactic of the tory politician in the video you linked.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-09-28 14:08:10)

Larssen wrote:

As a consequence climate science seems to be veering off from broad political acceptance as right wing conservatives focus their arguments on the understanding that climate policy on the left is used as a guise to destroy capitalism, which was exactly the tactic of the tory politician in the video you linked.

Conservatives in America have always rejected climate change. I think the more likely thing is that the English speaking conservatives are becoming Americanized rather than the hippies going too far.

Those who denied the existence of climate change can deny it no longer, so now they've moved to the "it's not man's fault" standpoint. As it's been a gradual process over decades, the waiting game is a very useful tactic. All they need to do is move the goalposts ("it'll be a little hotter", "the earth will still exist", "life will survive") and delay for their lifetime and they can continue to reap the benefits exploiting the earth. The Ben Shapiros who suggest if oceans start rising, people on the coasts will just sell their houses and move hand wave away the strife and resource wars that come with those effects. Luckily, if they make enough money now, they can ensure their ilk will be in favorable position when the time comes, and have the resources to defend their hoards against the grubby mobs coming for their supplies. The entire tactic is very transparent. Right now they just want to delay until it it's too late, then there's nothing to worry about because it's inevitable. At which point they can live out their years in relative luxury and comfort.

It surprises me that so many of these people do actually have kids. I don't have kids and don't plan to, so conceivably I could be an absolute monster to make these future generations suffer. However, I'm not a sociopath, so that's not likely to happen. I do wonder when we'll see the first patricide from someone trying to preserve their future.

Jay wrote:

From a personal standpoint, I think climate change is real, and is an issue, but I don't think the consequences are so dire or so immediate that we won't be able to adapt over time. We're talking about consequences that will take place over centuries, not years or days.

Current analysis is that we are already seeing real changes, they'll be very obvious in a few decades and quite likely to be severe within a century.

People have abandoned religion, which used to fill this hole in the soul and they're having kids later in life, which, trust me from experience, absolutely fills you with a sense of purpose and a reason for living.

Then its surprising that you don't seem to care about their future. What the plan, gather up enough money to ensure your kids can live in a floating city?

The problem, which none of you seem to get, is that this issue, if it is so dire, can't be centrally planned away.

Thats the only way it can be planned.

All of your solutions depend on massive expansions of government and regulation and the micromanagement of the lives of every soul on this planet.

No they don't.

The Green movement has always been the Red movement in disguise.

No it hasn't, its been independent of traditional politics, the radical left has latched onto it lately and the radical right has jumped on that.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

i'm also not convinced the left have some sort of monopoly on turning climate change into hysterical end-of-world religious stuff, just because AOC hypes it up. what about all the right-wing libertarians or silicon valley tech-bros who are now buying mountain plots in northern cali and going full survivalist mode? billionaire PayPal founders proposing floating cities off the coast of wrecked continents? it hardly only makes left-wing people excitable.

Silicon valley libertarians are largely extinct at this point. The dudes who made money want entry into polite society, which is dominated by progressives. There's a few holdouts like Peter Thiel, but most have followed Zuckerberg's lead and caved to all the media reports about lack of diversity. Now they toe the line.

The floating city idea is mostly about escaping government with like minded people, Galt's Gulch style. The Free State Project was pretty popular for a while too.

i understand, the wackjob fundamentalists who want to try alternative societies are cute/trivial/silly when it's at your end of the spectrum, despite the fact they have more money and a whole world of influential lobbyists and corporate interests.

but when leftists use apocalyptic rhetoric or talk about alternative ways to structure society in the future, they are a complete menace and must be stopped at all costs. look! this one has a few million followers on twitter! they are too strong!!!!

In what way are they related? A few guys with money want to build a floating city full of technology so they can be left alone. So what? At least they're leaving everyone else alone. Hippies on communes don't bother me either. They do their thing, I do mine. It's the left wing activists and progressives who try to inflict their ideas on the rest of us that I take issue with. There's a world of difference between living an alternative lifestyle off in the boonies somewhere and forcing your ideology on others with the power of government and forcing them to conform. Government power is violence. Peter Thiel isn't using any, neither are the hippies on the communes. It's the central planners that are produced by Ivy League schools that are the threat.

DesertFox- wrote:

Those who denied the existence of climate change can deny it no longer, so now they've moved to the "it's not man's fault" standpoint. As it's been a gradual process over decades, the waiting game is a very useful tactic. All they need to do is move the goalposts ("it'll be a little hotter", "the earth will still exist", "life will survive") and delay for their lifetime and they can continue to reap the benefits exploiting the earth. The Ben Shapiros who suggest if oceans start rising, people on the coasts will just sell their houses and move hand wave away the strife and resource wars that come with those effects. Luckily, if they make enough money now, they can ensure their ilk will be in favorable position when the time comes, and have the resources to defend their hoards against the grubby mobs coming for their supplies. The entire tactic is very transparent. Right now they just want to delay until it it's too late, then there's nothing to worry about because it's inevitable. At which point they can live out their years in relative luxury and comfort.

It surprises me that so many of these people do actually have kids. I don't have kids and don't plan to, so conceivably I could be an absolute monster to make these future generations suffer. However, I'm not a sociopath, so that's not likely to happen. I do wonder when we'll see the first patricide from someone trying to preserve their future.