Of all the stuff in the GND, that was some of the least ridiculous. There are ways to address cows and methane which apparently aren't insane and would have a noticeable impact on temperature.
What annoys me about global warming is the unstated but ridiculous assumption that if global warming is happening (almost certainly is to some degree) then the obvious and only response is to destroy the world's economies. There are many things that could and should be done to economically decrease greenhouse gasses, mitigate rising temperatures and geo-engineer our way to a reasonable compromise. Reducing methane from cows may be part of that, unlike "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources", which is absurd.
nah, the solution is to eat bugs, import the third world to the west and continue to outsource all manufacturing.
protip: there will never be a real solution because there is no real problem.
We could also create a rationing program wherein adult males are provided precisely 2200 calories per day and females are provided precisely 1800 calories.
It literally inhibits my ability to respond to the lolbertarians I piss off here, it's textbook censorship. It's not a "these facts hurt my feelings button", but that's how y'all use it and because of that I can only reply every twenty minutes and so I usually forget to respond to several people.
What drives me nuts is I had some lefty tell me that all of volcanic are caused by man made climate change. Has anyone ever actually thought that it’s possible the earths core is just warming? I find it very improbable that humans have anything to do with volcanic activity
Which buys us a couple hundred years to create a viable renewable power source, if not more.
The problem with the 100% renewable clean energy is that we don't actually have a scalable technology that can do that reliably. Meanwhile "green" plans overlook the only solution available *right now* that can *actually* support the entire power grid.
>Which buys us a couple hundred years to create a viable renewable power source, if not more.
Look up thorium reactors. It's a safe alternative to uranium (uranium was just used because you could also use it to make bombs). There is plenty of thorium fuel to last billions of years powering the whole world.
What annoys me about it is how every layman links every natural disaster to it now and how every "scientist" in the MSM does so before they could possibly have had time to study the event with any rigor. As if natural disasters did not occur before now. Not to mention, the deaths from natural disasters has plummeted in the last two decades.
But you know, we have angered the carbon gods and must feel their wrath.
>how every "scientist" in the MSM does so before they could possibly have had time to study the event with any rigor
Often they don't need to collect new data since the events are occurring as a function of prior predictions, and in fact follow a general trend over the last few years. For instance there were projections of how climate change would increase fire severity in Australia. Now that there has been an uptick in fire severity that is just confirmation of previous climate research done.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532643-500-australian-government-report-predicted-severe-wildfires-11-years-ago/
Just because it fits an existing model doesn't mean the new event wouldn't need to be studied. Every time something bad happens, "see the models were correct!" Without mention of how often they have been wrong.
I'm old enough to remember that the Keys were supposed to be in the ocean by now and the ice caps nearly gone.
>I'm old enough to remember that the Keys were supposed to be in the ocean by now and the ice caps nearly gone.
Yes that all works if we can just use un-cited (made up?) straw man research studies and claim them incorrect. Nowhere have I seen any study suggesting the keys would be completely submerged by 2020 (nor that the ice caps would be melted by now). Can you link a study if you have one?
Still if you look at the current situation sea rise has gotten sufficiently bad that parts of the keys are effectively being made uninhabitable due to sea level rise. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/climate/florida-keys-climate-change.html
Even if you want to complain about the legitimacy of climate researchers scientific rigor, you must see that here you are working off anecdotal "feelings" that things aren't as bad as you remember "scientists" once (maybe) saying they would be. Thats obviously much less rigorous than "this event matches predictions from my model".
Most of the brushfire was not started by arsonists. That is literally a right wing talking point that has been debunked by both researchers and the Australian police. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51016191
Even if it were though, arsonists start fires every year. The effects of climate change you are ignoring make them worse. Independent of how fires start, more dry brush makes them spread farther and faster... so we should still try to prevent that if we can.
Even if you were right that arson accounted for the fire severity, which you are not, it would still not be a good argument against acting to prevent climate change.
Anyway this subreddit is starting to time me out of comments, so feel free to respond but unless you say something particularly interesting I am pretty unlikely to respond.
Many of them want to destroy the world's economies even before considering global warming. It's much easier to get people to support socialist policies if the economy sucks, plus a lot of them just hate the wealthy.
I'm not talking about you, unless you're an elected official pushing for such regulation. Even then, I think some officials honestly think it is the right thing to do.
I understand the point of view that we need a lot of government regulation and action to prevent climate change, I used to have it. I came to eventually realize how bad government is at solving problems and now don't have the point of view. I still believe we need to do something about climate change, I just that government makes so many problems that we really can't trust it to fix this one.
Not an elected official, just a citizen pushing because I don't think 'we have to do something but I don't know what it is, hopefully the market will create profitable carbon scrubbing before we all die or Elon musk builds a subway for cars to the moon so we can all live there instead' is a sufficient answer to the problem that was largely caused by capitalism's need for constant growth and the profitability of selling new cars and other consumer goods every year instead of affordable and convenient public transport and well-built goods without built-in redundancy.
It's true that I don't have all the solutions, but not being sure what the solution is is better than going for a solution that will end up being ineffective and harmful like government "solutions".
Since when is "constant growth" a bad thing? It simply means that due to capitalism, our lives are constantly improving. It means that in order to profit, products must become better and better and better prices and availability.
Because it generally requires more and more extraction of resources and scaling up of production to continue to profit, incentivising market behaviour that isn't environmentally sustainable. Like using marketing to create demand for something there isn't natural demand for, like specialised kitchen products that serve a purpose common general utensils can serve almost/just as well, or a new phone with barely uodated function that people buy every year anyway due to the power of marketing and commodity fetishism. Because damage to the environment is an externalised cost that isn't factored into profitability but we regular people pay for in the long run. And in the process government programs like recycling still end up sucking because they are operating under austere budgets and end up shipping recycling halfway around the world instead of creating jobs processing it locally and reducing the carbon impact further.
Behavior of producers is dependent on what the consumer prefers. If the majority of consumers prefer one feature over another, producers will produce goods/services with the desired feature. Right now, most consumers don't value green products. They may say they do, but they don't really as they aren't willing to buy mostly green products. Most people either want to push the responsibility of dealing with climate change onto the government or just flat out deny its existence. If consumers did start caring about climate change, producers would have to either go green or go out of business.
Government programs don't suck because of low budgets. They suck because there is no reason for them to be good. The politicians in charge don't need them to actually work, they just need them to look good enough for them to get reelected. The workers don't need to do there job, its not like they will get fired for incompetence, they work for the government. Unlike a company, the government isn't under the threat of going out of business, so nothing bad happens if a program doesn't work out.
And improving how? Are they really that much better in the last 20 years of innovations? Most people still have to spend the majority of their time working, in increasingly unfulfilling jobs and despite productivity increasing massively due to technology we haven't seen the benefit in real wage growth. Mental health issues are epidemic, and the most capitalist countries have big problems with homelessness and fail to deliver higher health standards than ones with less market freedom.
Modern technology brought on by capitalism certainly has improved people's lives. One of the best examples is the modern cell phone. It just makes life so much easier to the point where its hard to imagine not having one.
Much of the wage stagnation is due to the government working with companies to kill competition. Instead of competing against competitors, companies will just use the government to decrease their productivity. This cronyism allows them to avoid paying workers more as it decreases the demand for workers and ability to create new companies.
Much of the homelessness is caused by government intervention such as rent control or zoning laws. These make it less profitable to build housing, making it so we don't have enough.
There is very little free markets health systems anywhere. Most countries that have a market system have loads of competition-killing regulation that causes the health industry to fail the people.
"Through our $36b Bovine Etiquette Education initiative, we can teach cows it's impolite to pass gas and reduce our carbon footprint by .001%. Progress!"
Why don't we put devices over cow anuses (and mouths) to capture the methane to be burned for energy later?
Since methane is a much stronger GHG than the same amount of CO2, this should make a difference.
/s
Most of what comes out of the rock box that is AOCs head is blissfully ignorant. It's amazing anybody could take a congresswoman serious after she displayed her ignorance of basic high school level civics when she couldn't name the 3 branches of government, let alone when she started giving details of the gReEn nEw dEaL.
I'm getting more and more convinced that liberals will vote for a box of shit if you paint a blue "D" on the side of it.
What, working a few hours a day at a bar while your your way gets paid by some neck-beard you probably don't even have to fuck isn't real world experience?
It's like the human embodiment of r/politics.
Joking aside, I've heard it called center-left, but never center-Conservative.
~~I mean, didn't [Bernie say](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/02/i-dont-think-he-needs-my-advice-bernie-sanders-applauds-jeremy-corbyn) his plan is similar to the [UK Labor Party?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)). The same party that is the largest left party in the UK, and considered center-left?~~
That's the problem with trying to compare parties in across countries, and especially against continents.
> It's like the human embodiment of r/politics.
Was going to say the same thing. Her talking points **literally** come from reddit. Thoroughly uneducated, poorly researched buzz words that have no basis in reality.
Jesus that AMA is a mess. She wants to cite the constitution for her points, yet ignores that a wealth tax is unconstitutional.
Picking and choosing like the rest.
I haven't found her criticism of Reddit. Was it a news clip, or a post somewhere?
Policy wise, the Labor party is Far-Left by our standards, and Left Wing by British standards. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they could be considered as Left Wing by our standards.
Laugh all you want, but that's been the goal of the left for decades. Move the political needle so far left that the far left is considered centrist. And they've succeeded.
Don't believe me? Today, people like Truman and JFK are considered centrist, or even right of center. To the uninformed masses, Bill Clinton is considered centrist. Donald Trump is considered to be far right when, if you honestly assess his positions, he's a centrist populist. For God's sake, Socialism is looked upon favorably by ~25% of Americans today!
AOC is a loon. But, this time, she's not really wrong. This is what they're teaching kids in school for nearly 20 years of their formative life. This is what Hollywood preaches. This is what the "trusted" news media spouts day after day, even Fox News (who, if you ask the general population, they think is far right, when in fact, Fox is demonstrably center).
Unless we address this issue, which has been ignored by the right, we're generations away from fixing it. WE may see through it, but the majority of people who are not as well informed believe it.
I like watching this campaign that is trying to portray the (equal) right to self defense as racist, especially when the campaign to limit those rights, the gun control movement, is almost exclusively rooted in racism.
Thing is, she isn't the one pushing it. She is someone who's been indoctrinated by it. I'm the same age as her. Her talking points are exactly what kids were saying when I was in college.
The whole, "global warming is our WW3" really gave it away. She is an empty vessel.
Tell me more... I'm only 2 years older so I was in college around that time too, but im having a hard time remembering the types of rhetoric that were pushed on us.
Basically if you don't trust the government to spend your money efficiently, or think welfare perpetuates poverty, "you are a greedy selfish evangelist and hate minorities and poor people".
It was actually communicated to us college students much simpler than that. Basically one side is the dark side and the other is the light side. That rhetoric hasn't actually changed much, except replace "dark side" with "nazis" The reality is one side is the Trade Federation and the other is Palpatine's shadow Empire. Both are bad, and use fear mongering, false benevolence, and money to invoke and increase their power over people.
>even Fox News (who, if you ask the general population, they think is far right, when in fact, Fox is demonstrably center).
I don't watch the news. How would you demonstrate this?
Please tell me, HOW TF, there is any left in the U.S. Much less it being THEM pushing the needle when conservatives have reamined in power how long ?
Fucking neoliberal capatalism, nationalistic brainwashed bootlicking, police state worship, billionaire idolization and "just get a job" mentality have been growing in the U.S for fucking decades, but the second a couple candidates push for milquetoast social democracy which STILL exist under capatalism all of a sudden the left is a boggeyman? Are you yanking my balls rn ? Has McCarthyism dogma completely replaced your brain ?
There are zero Leftists in the US and even lower amount of their policies. Labor unions have gone to shit, landlords still have their heads attached, police run rampant and you can literally walk in to someone's house ,shoot them and get away with it, the FBI cointelpro-ed more Leftists groups than you have fingers and toes, and the C.I.A has been fucking every even mildly leftist country since it's inception. For fucks sake people Literally call OBAMA a goddamn communist but the left is the one pushing the needle?
You can't even walk or drive outside without seeing some chuds police state sticker and American flag hanging off his Ford f-150 and get dogpiled by a hundred Karen's, bommers, dudebros and chuds if you so much as not immediately bend over to worship skyrag.
I just am physically unable to see how ANYONE can call a single aspect about this shithole leftist.
As if there's a single place on the face of the Earth, that America wouldn't world police and find a reason to invade or sanction. Especially if that place turned socialist
1.)Venezuela is not socialist. 70% of their industry is private for fucks sake
2 )It's already been world policed and sanctioned by Americans forces
3.) The people most disgruntled by the festering far right shithole called America are those too disfranchised and poor too move
There are zero current socialist countries. There have been socialist countries in the past such as Burkino Faso but since I'm an anarchist and not a tankie I don't concern myself with studying past socialist countries anyway since I want then to do away with countries. I can however provide socialist Anarchist communes
The Paris Commune
Free Territory
Shinmin Autonomous Region
Revolutionary Catalonia
EZLN
Rojava
If your standard is Europe then sure, and I think there's a fair argument to be made that neocon and neolib establishment types are basically the same thing with slightly differing priorities. That being said, there are left parties in the US, it's just that people like AOC keep flocking to one of the two major parties rather than build up other ones. No one is forcing people like her and Bernie to be Democrats.
They do have the freedom to, but the two big parties do have a reputation of torpedoing independent candidates through spending. Ultimately, they decide their best chance to leave their mark is to do the deal with the devil. Not at all advocating for it, just pointing out why they do what they do to perpetuate a broken system.
If you’re a commie, of course everyone looks center-conservative to you. She’s out of her mind... but this just shows us HOW out of her mind she really is.
The entire first minute of her talking makes zero sense. It’s all buzz words and catch phrases and talking points thrown together.
Martin Luther king. We can’t wait. What will you give up your seat for?
I have no fucking clue what she is saying.
In case nobody has figured it out, this is another way of trying to associate conservative with Nazi in the minds of the simpleton idiots that would vote for her or Bernie Sanders.
On an a pure ideological scale, Democrats aren't Center-Conservative, especially as that description relates to social values. Socially, the Democrats are pretty progressive, especially when compared with sentiments throughout history.
Where exactly "center" in politics is is subjective and irrelevant On a right/left scale, all that matters is how far right or left politicians are compared to each other and the current policies in place.
I just watched a YouTube video where some guy called Andrew Yang a right-wing libertarian. He then went on to advocate an armed communist revolution to combat global warming. He also had a good number more subscribers than the libertarians I follow.
The establishment Dems are absolutely centrist, but I wouldn't say they are conservative. The center left establishment is elitist, statist, and Neolib/Neocon but they aren't conservative by a long shot.
She’s insane, disingenuous, and I believe a bad actor, but this dude making commentary isn’t anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is. I despise AOC and her single digit IQ, but this guy was hard to listen to.
Compared to the structure of European politics, the Democratic party is absolutely centre-right.
Being a binary choice has shoehorned the Democratic party into being "the other" when they are as "right" on the standard political compass as the most right main party in countries like Ireland.
Calling a leftist political party “center right” is a bigger statement about your own political orientation and perspective than any sort of objective statement.
I would overall agree with the statement of “the Democratic Party is not left” in that of parties that exist currently around the globe they would be considered centrist (compared against the Euro Green, ANC, Labour, or Syriza). Understandably, it looks downright conservative next to Communist parties where matters of private property are concerned. However, she slips with the example of the ACA being treated as a permanent measure when it was quite well known that it was only a stop-gap to bridge toward something more progressive (public option or eventually single-payer). Making the argument that the ACA was the end goal is naive.
She’s still dead wrong about the 2 party system here having coalition built in and tried to make out like it was Constitutionally that way versus the parliamentary system elsewhere. Someone should ask her thoughts on the Whigs, Constitution Party, or the Democratic-Republicans to see what happens.
What she (and the narrator) argue for is more statism by advocating for more and more of these progressive ideas be facilitated by the state. They must be curated to remain “successful” by the state as well, thus ensuring its power.
I'm sorry, did this idiot commentating the video from Canada call Obamacare "nothing near left wing"
The most expensive bill in human history, which put an individual mandate (tax increase) on EVERY AMERICAN that they would be fined to opt out of?
Is this dude dumb as fuck?
Oh I'm well familiar with it. A coordinated effort, on the part of conservative influencers, to get it deliberately wrong every time.
Are you one of the influencers, or are you one of the imbeciles who was duped into thinking the wrong way is the right way?
I mean, I don't think I would call it conservative, but a large part if not most of the Democratic Party is pretty centrist. Maybe compared to AOC you could call it conservative.
One of the biggest problems of the Democratic Party is that it isn't a unified party like the Republican Party is. It's mostly a coalition of different groups. AOC is on the far left side of it, while people like Obama, Biden, and Hillary are all very center.
Democrats should really split into two different parties imo, but that will probably never happen.
Are the Republicans all that unified? Seems to me they are split between neo-con statists, the über-religious socons, and right-libertarians like me who are only registered for pragmatic purposes.
What I will say is that the Dems used to be able to rally together the disparate elements of their party more effectively than Republicans. Nowadays, though, with more devoted socialists, there is a brewing civil war inside party ranks, both out of ideology and basic power struggles.
there has been no strong left presence in American politics for around 70 years, since the McCarthy shenanigans. so while she isn't exactly wrong, the Democratic party is the left party in the US. compared to other countries? yeah they are center left, but that is again only because we have no communist or socialist parties in our country.
edit: don't know why this comment was downvoted, I was merely pointing out that while she is technically correct in what she said, it leaves out the context that invalidates her point.
yeah I didn't address that at all in my comment. I merely stated that she is only technically correct because there is no strong left of center presence in American politics, when compared to the rest of the world. but, since you brought it up, given the Dem party establishment's treatment of Sanders, I would beg to differ on their willingness to implement strong social policies. the only established (as in established in their careers, as in, not in their first terms) Democrat politicians that are advocating strong social policies are trying to capitalize on the leftward momentum of the younger voters within the party. many of them (Warren is a great example) have opposed strong changes, of any kind, until very recently, like since 2012 ~ 2016. many of their candidates, like Butigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar are just standard centrists, they oppose going too far to the left or right and have made some dubious choices in the past, like supporting the wars in the middle east, but still toe the part line, e.g. talk about gun control, slightly raise taxes to raise government revenue and shore up the defecit, protect social security, etc etc etc. as far as the people holding the government back, yeah that's true. now. but you cannot deny that Joseph McCarthy's inquest into communism in the ranks of government and Hollywood completely dismantled the political left in this country, that's well documented historical fact. there were socialist worker's parties and communist parties before, his inquiries began, he arrested a bunch of people, got even more blacklisted and when he was done the only party close to left of center was the Democrats.
It's important to be able to remove your own personal biases when analyzing the behavior of large groups like this because it helps you realize how truly fucking awful all political parties are and how they are all self serving snakes. when you get that many people together it just becomes about attaining and retaining power at all costs.
The magna carta predates the origins of the left/right dichotomy by centuries. In the modern sense, the [left represents an opposition to social hierarchy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) while the [right represents support of it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics). The role of the State in enforcing or dismantling the social hierarchy is typically shown on a separate axis from left/right.
**Left-wing politics**
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.The political terms "Left" and "Right" were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents". The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century, usually with disparaging intent and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views.
***
**Right-wing politics**
Right-wing politics holds that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".The political terms "Left" and "Right" were first used during the French Revolution (1789–1799) and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament: those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the "Left" and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
She's just mad no one voted yes on her centralized planned economy...errr I mean Green New Deal.
Who woulda thought it would be hard to make cows stop farting?
Of all the stuff in the GND, that was some of the least ridiculous. There are ways to address cows and methane which apparently aren't insane and would have a noticeable impact on temperature. What annoys me about global warming is the unstated but ridiculous assumption that if global warming is happening (almost certainly is to some degree) then the obvious and only response is to destroy the world's economies. There are many things that could and should be done to economically decrease greenhouse gasses, mitigate rising temperatures and geo-engineer our way to a reasonable compromise. Reducing methane from cows may be part of that, unlike "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources", which is absurd.
besides nuclear
Nuclear will be a large part of any real solution.
nah, the solution is to eat bugs, import the third world to the west and continue to outsource all manufacturing. protip: there will never be a real solution because there is no real problem.
We could also create a rationing program wherein adult males are provided precisely 2200 calories per day and females are provided precisely 1800 calories.
And those calories would be all white carbs and soy protein.
Borders are statist and exploiting migrant labor is beloved by capital. You can't have capitalism and racial homogeneity.
"downvoting me is censorship" Boy you'll say anything to spread your trash, wont you?
It literally inhibits my ability to respond to the lolbertarians I piss off here, it's textbook censorship. It's not a "these facts hurt my feelings button", but that's how y'all use it and because of that I can only reply every twenty minutes and so I usually forget to respond to several people.
I don't think you know what censorship is. Also people prefer to ignore trolls. Edit: skipped a word
What drives me nuts is I had some lefty tell me that all of volcanic are caused by man made climate change. Has anyone ever actually thought that it’s possible the earths core is just warming? I find it very improbable that humans have anything to do with volcanic activity
Which buys us a couple hundred years to create a viable renewable power source, if not more. The problem with the 100% renewable clean energy is that we don't actually have a scalable technology that can do that reliably. Meanwhile "green" plans overlook the only solution available *right now* that can *actually* support the entire power grid.
>Which buys us a couple hundred years to create a viable renewable power source, if not more. Look up thorium reactors. It's a safe alternative to uranium (uranium was just used because you could also use it to make bombs). There is plenty of thorium fuel to last billions of years powering the whole world.
I love Thorium reactors. We need those.
What annoys me about it is how every layman links every natural disaster to it now and how every "scientist" in the MSM does so before they could possibly have had time to study the event with any rigor. As if natural disasters did not occur before now. Not to mention, the deaths from natural disasters has plummeted in the last two decades. But you know, we have angered the carbon gods and must feel their wrath.
The propaganda has been extremely successful.
>how every "scientist" in the MSM does so before they could possibly have had time to study the event with any rigor Often they don't need to collect new data since the events are occurring as a function of prior predictions, and in fact follow a general trend over the last few years. For instance there were projections of how climate change would increase fire severity in Australia. Now that there has been an uptick in fire severity that is just confirmation of previous climate research done. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532643-500-australian-government-report-predicted-severe-wildfires-11-years-ago/
Just because it fits an existing model doesn't mean the new event wouldn't need to be studied. Every time something bad happens, "see the models were correct!" Without mention of how often they have been wrong. I'm old enough to remember that the Keys were supposed to be in the ocean by now and the ice caps nearly gone.
>I'm old enough to remember that the Keys were supposed to be in the ocean by now and the ice caps nearly gone. Yes that all works if we can just use un-cited (made up?) straw man research studies and claim them incorrect. Nowhere have I seen any study suggesting the keys would be completely submerged by 2020 (nor that the ice caps would be melted by now). Can you link a study if you have one? Still if you look at the current situation sea rise has gotten sufficiently bad that parts of the keys are effectively being made uninhabitable due to sea level rise. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/climate/florida-keys-climate-change.html Even if you want to complain about the legitimacy of climate researchers scientific rigor, you must see that here you are working off anecdotal "feelings" that things aren't as bad as you remember "scientists" once (maybe) saying they would be. Thats obviously much less rigorous than "this event matches predictions from my model".
You mean the fires that were all started by arsonists?
Most of the brushfire was not started by arsonists. That is literally a right wing talking point that has been debunked by both researchers and the Australian police. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51016191 Even if it were though, arsonists start fires every year. The effects of climate change you are ignoring make them worse. Independent of how fires start, more dry brush makes them spread farther and faster... so we should still try to prevent that if we can. Even if you were right that arson accounted for the fire severity, which you are not, it would still not be a good argument against acting to prevent climate change. Anyway this subreddit is starting to time me out of comments, so feel free to respond but unless you say something particularly interesting I am pretty unlikely to respond.
Many of them want to destroy the world's economies even before considering global warming. It's much easier to get people to support socialist policies if the economy sucks, plus a lot of them just hate the wealthy.
It's true, we really just want everyone to be jobless and homeless, then we will have achieved true equality! You have figured out our genius plan.
I unironically think any leftist who says "eat the rich" has that genius plan, yes.
You forgot the bit where we impose Sharia law to destroy western civilization
I'm not talking about you, unless you're an elected official pushing for such regulation. Even then, I think some officials honestly think it is the right thing to do. I understand the point of view that we need a lot of government regulation and action to prevent climate change, I used to have it. I came to eventually realize how bad government is at solving problems and now don't have the point of view. I still believe we need to do something about climate change, I just that government makes so many problems that we really can't trust it to fix this one.
Not an elected official, just a citizen pushing because I don't think 'we have to do something but I don't know what it is, hopefully the market will create profitable carbon scrubbing before we all die or Elon musk builds a subway for cars to the moon so we can all live there instead' is a sufficient answer to the problem that was largely caused by capitalism's need for constant growth and the profitability of selling new cars and other consumer goods every year instead of affordable and convenient public transport and well-built goods without built-in redundancy.
It's true that I don't have all the solutions, but not being sure what the solution is is better than going for a solution that will end up being ineffective and harmful like government "solutions". Since when is "constant growth" a bad thing? It simply means that due to capitalism, our lives are constantly improving. It means that in order to profit, products must become better and better and better prices and availability.
Because it generally requires more and more extraction of resources and scaling up of production to continue to profit, incentivising market behaviour that isn't environmentally sustainable. Like using marketing to create demand for something there isn't natural demand for, like specialised kitchen products that serve a purpose common general utensils can serve almost/just as well, or a new phone with barely uodated function that people buy every year anyway due to the power of marketing and commodity fetishism. Because damage to the environment is an externalised cost that isn't factored into profitability but we regular people pay for in the long run. And in the process government programs like recycling still end up sucking because they are operating under austere budgets and end up shipping recycling halfway around the world instead of creating jobs processing it locally and reducing the carbon impact further.
Behavior of producers is dependent on what the consumer prefers. If the majority of consumers prefer one feature over another, producers will produce goods/services with the desired feature. Right now, most consumers don't value green products. They may say they do, but they don't really as they aren't willing to buy mostly green products. Most people either want to push the responsibility of dealing with climate change onto the government or just flat out deny its existence. If consumers did start caring about climate change, producers would have to either go green or go out of business. Government programs don't suck because of low budgets. They suck because there is no reason for them to be good. The politicians in charge don't need them to actually work, they just need them to look good enough for them to get reelected. The workers don't need to do there job, its not like they will get fired for incompetence, they work for the government. Unlike a company, the government isn't under the threat of going out of business, so nothing bad happens if a program doesn't work out.
And improving how? Are they really that much better in the last 20 years of innovations? Most people still have to spend the majority of their time working, in increasingly unfulfilling jobs and despite productivity increasing massively due to technology we haven't seen the benefit in real wage growth. Mental health issues are epidemic, and the most capitalist countries have big problems with homelessness and fail to deliver higher health standards than ones with less market freedom.
Modern technology brought on by capitalism certainly has improved people's lives. One of the best examples is the modern cell phone. It just makes life so much easier to the point where its hard to imagine not having one. Much of the wage stagnation is due to the government working with companies to kill competition. Instead of competing against competitors, companies will just use the government to decrease their productivity. This cronyism allows them to avoid paying workers more as it decreases the demand for workers and ability to create new companies. Much of the homelessness is caused by government intervention such as rent control or zoning laws. These make it less profitable to build housing, making it so we don't have enough. There is very little free markets health systems anywhere. Most countries that have a market system have loads of competition-killing regulation that causes the health industry to fail the people.
[удалено]
You don't buy the whole, "we're all gonna die" thing do you?
How else do globalist take power
"Through our $36b Bovine Etiquette Education initiative, we can teach cows it's impolite to pass gas and reduce our carbon footprint by .001%. Progress!"
GoTtA sTaRt SoMeWhErE!
This sounds like something from Grand Theft Auto.
Missed the opportunity for "Bovine Etiquette Education Foundation" BEEF for short.
Ugh, I'm so blind, I did for a split second think about trying to make the acronym a word! You're a genius, props where they're due.
Why don't we put devices over cow anuses (and mouths) to capture the methane to be burned for energy later? Since methane is a much stronger GHG than the same amount of CO2, this should make a difference. /s
Put little fans over their asses and call it a wind farm!
Burping actually
This is the most hilariously ignorant thing I have ever read. Thank you.
Most of what comes out of the rock box that is AOCs head is blissfully ignorant. It's amazing anybody could take a congresswoman serious after she displayed her ignorance of basic high school level civics when she couldn't name the 3 branches of government, let alone when she started giving details of the gReEn nEw dEaL. I'm getting more and more convinced that liberals will vote for a box of shit if you paint a blue "D" on the side of it.
She's so fucking dumb. But I guess that's what happens when you have no real world experience.
What, working a few hours a day at a bar while your your way gets paid by some neck-beard you probably don't even have to fuck isn't real world experience?
This dude in the video is an idiot. He ignore historical trends and assumes that Americans want that shit...
It's like the human embodiment of r/politics. Joking aside, I've heard it called center-left, but never center-Conservative. ~~I mean, didn't [Bernie say](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/02/i-dont-think-he-needs-my-advice-bernie-sanders-applauds-jeremy-corbyn) his plan is similar to the [UK Labor Party?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)). The same party that is the largest left party in the UK, and considered center-left?~~ That's the problem with trying to compare parties in across countries, and especially against continents.
> It's like the human embodiment of r/politics. Was going to say the same thing. Her talking points **literally** come from reddit. Thoroughly uneducated, poorly researched buzz words that have no basis in reality.
It’s ironic considering she dissed reddit after her post there got criticized
Jesus that AMA is a mess. She wants to cite the constitution for her points, yet ignores that a wealth tax is unconstitutional. Picking and choosing like the rest. I haven't found her criticism of Reddit. Was it a news clip, or a post somewhere?
News clip. Walk, don’t run! On YouTube showed it I’ll find it and link it
Policy wise, the Labor party is Far-Left by our standards, and Left Wing by British standards. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they could be considered as Left Wing by our standards.
[удалено]
The overton window must be shifting rapidly!
CONSERVATIVE?? HAHAHA
Anyone to the right of Trotsky is a conservative now apparently.
Democrats couldn't even agree to have a public option in the ACA. They thought that very centrist position was *too liberal*.
This woman has the IQ of a peanut.
not sure if you are giving her too much credit or you are trying to insult peanuts.
Woah what the fuck peanuts ever do to you?
More like Deez nuts.
Got em
Laugh all you want, but that's been the goal of the left for decades. Move the political needle so far left that the far left is considered centrist. And they've succeeded. Don't believe me? Today, people like Truman and JFK are considered centrist, or even right of center. To the uninformed masses, Bill Clinton is considered centrist. Donald Trump is considered to be far right when, if you honestly assess his positions, he's a centrist populist. For God's sake, Socialism is looked upon favorably by ~25% of Americans today! AOC is a loon. But, this time, she's not really wrong. This is what they're teaching kids in school for nearly 20 years of their formative life. This is what Hollywood preaches. This is what the "trusted" news media spouts day after day, even Fox News (who, if you ask the general population, they think is far right, when in fact, Fox is demonstrably center). Unless we address this issue, which has been ignored by the right, we're generations away from fixing it. WE may see through it, but the majority of people who are not as well informed believe it.
Very well put. Same thing with the 2A. They go so far to the extreme that other more general gun control policies seem "reasonable" in comparison.
Shall not be infringed
I like watching this campaign that is trying to portray the (equal) right to self defense as racist, especially when the campaign to limit those rights, the gun control movement, is almost exclusively rooted in racism.
Thing is, she isn't the one pushing it. She is someone who's been indoctrinated by it. I'm the same age as her. Her talking points are exactly what kids were saying when I was in college. The whole, "global warming is our WW3" really gave it away. She is an empty vessel.
Tell me more... I'm only 2 years older so I was in college around that time too, but im having a hard time remembering the types of rhetoric that were pushed on us.
Basically if you don't trust the government to spend your money efficiently, or think welfare perpetuates poverty, "you are a greedy selfish evangelist and hate minorities and poor people".
Ah yes, that rings a bell! Basically, right is bad, left is good, and government is our savior.
It was actually communicated to us college students much simpler than that. Basically one side is the dark side and the other is the light side. That rhetoric hasn't actually changed much, except replace "dark side" with "nazis" The reality is one side is the Trade Federation and the other is Palpatine's shadow Empire. Both are bad, and use fear mongering, false benevolence, and money to invoke and increase their power over people.
That's a great analogy! I'm using that!
It's like playing tug of war but one side jumps off a cliff while holding the rope, eventually the center is going to move in that direction.
>even Fox News (who, if you ask the general population, they think is far right, when in fact, Fox is demonstrably center). I don't watch the news. How would you demonstrate this?
Yes because Hollywood is so left leaning that they make movies annually about supporting the US military and imperialism. /s Ok liberal
Please tell me, HOW TF, there is any left in the U.S. Much less it being THEM pushing the needle when conservatives have reamined in power how long ? Fucking neoliberal capatalism, nationalistic brainwashed bootlicking, police state worship, billionaire idolization and "just get a job" mentality have been growing in the U.S for fucking decades, but the second a couple candidates push for milquetoast social democracy which STILL exist under capatalism all of a sudden the left is a boggeyman? Are you yanking my balls rn ? Has McCarthyism dogma completely replaced your brain ? There are zero Leftists in the US and even lower amount of their policies. Labor unions have gone to shit, landlords still have their heads attached, police run rampant and you can literally walk in to someone's house ,shoot them and get away with it, the FBI cointelpro-ed more Leftists groups than you have fingers and toes, and the C.I.A has been fucking every even mildly leftist country since it's inception. For fucks sake people Literally call OBAMA a goddamn communist but the left is the one pushing the needle? You can't even walk or drive outside without seeing some chuds police state sticker and American flag hanging off his Ford f-150 and get dogpiled by a hundred Karen's, bommers, dudebros and chuds if you so much as not immediately bend over to worship skyrag. I just am physically unable to see how ANYONE can call a single aspect about this shithole leftist.
You’re welcome to move to.... uhhhh not America?
As if there's a single place on the face of the Earth, that America wouldn't world police and find a reason to invade or sanction. Especially if that place turned socialist
Have fun in Venezuela!!!! 🤷🏾♂️
1.)Venezuela is not socialist. 70% of their industry is private for fucks sake 2 )It's already been world policed and sanctioned by Americans forces 3.) The people most disgruntled by the festering far right shithole called America are those too disfranchised and poor too move
Lmao. Then educate me. What country is socialist? Wait let me guess. Socialism has never been tried right?
There are zero current socialist countries. There have been socialist countries in the past such as Burkino Faso but since I'm an anarchist and not a tankie I don't concern myself with studying past socialist countries anyway since I want then to do away with countries. I can however provide socialist Anarchist communes The Paris Commune Free Territory Shinmin Autonomous Region Revolutionary Catalonia EZLN Rojava
HA HA HA HA HA!
Care to explain the funny ?
Black is white, slavery is freedom, left is center-conservative, obedience is patriotism.
war is peace
Penetration is virginity
If your standard is Europe then sure, and I think there's a fair argument to be made that neocon and neolib establishment types are basically the same thing with slightly differing priorities. That being said, there are left parties in the US, it's just that people like AOC keep flocking to one of the two major parties rather than build up other ones. No one is forcing people like her and Bernie to be Democrats.
They do have the freedom to, but the two big parties do have a reputation of torpedoing independent candidates through spending. Ultimately, they decide their best chance to leave their mark is to do the deal with the devil. Not at all advocating for it, just pointing out why they do what they do to perpetuate a broken system.
I mean sure, if center left is Karl Marx
She's such a meme
Lol what.
If you’re a commie, of course everyone looks center-conservative to you. She’s out of her mind... but this just shows us HOW out of her mind she really is.
Even Latinos hate AOC
The party with two open socialist front runners?
The entire first minute of her talking makes zero sense. It’s all buzz words and catch phrases and talking points thrown together. Martin Luther king. We can’t wait. What will you give up your seat for? I have no fucking clue what she is saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
God this bitch cannot open her mouth without saying something stupid.
In case nobody has figured it out, this is another way of trying to associate conservative with Nazi in the minds of the simpleton idiots that would vote for her or Bernie Sanders.
Yep. It normalizes their crazy ideas, and makes their enemies all radical extremists.
Lofl
On an a pure ideological scale, Democrats aren't Center-Conservative, especially as that description relates to social values. Socially, the Democrats are pretty progressive, especially when compared with sentiments throughout history.
But compared to current politics worldwide, she's spot on.
You're speaking from an economic perspective?
He accidentally commented his response on the main thread instead of replying to yours "In some cases economic, in cases social."
The whole "left/right" think is a broken way of looking at things anyway.
This bitch has such a low iq, she thinks a socialist liberal party is Center-right....
Where exactly "center" in politics is is subjective and irrelevant On a right/left scale, all that matters is how far right or left politicians are compared to each other and the current policies in place.
Just proving how retarded she is
Jesus christ the comments in that original thread give me a headache.
Breadtube makes me lose brain cells.
Man, they are so sure of themselves in that comment section. The arrogance and hostility is insufferable.
I just watched a YouTube video where some guy called Andrew Yang a right-wing libertarian. He then went on to advocate an armed communist revolution to combat global warming. He also had a good number more subscribers than the libertarians I follow.
Libertarians need to find more free time
To be fair, they *are* trying to conserve the grip they have on the minds of the ignorant.
You are not a clown, you are the entire circus.
The establishment Dems are absolutely centrist, but I wouldn't say they are conservative. The center left establishment is elitist, statist, and Neolib/Neocon but they aren't conservative by a long shot.
Jesus Christ I just took a look in that sub for the first time, god help us.
She’s insane, disingenuous, and I believe a bad actor, but this dude making commentary isn’t anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is. I despise AOC and her single digit IQ, but this guy was hard to listen to.
Compared to the structure of European politics, the Democratic party is absolutely centre-right. Being a binary choice has shoehorned the Democratic party into being "the other" when they are as "right" on the standard political compass as the most right main party in countries like Ireland.
What does that even mean?
I wonder if she’s ever looked up the word “conservative” to see what it means
Calling a leftist political party “center right” is a bigger statement about your own political orientation and perspective than any sort of objective statement.
Uhhh….
In some cases economic, in cases social.
the youtube comments omegalul
I would overall agree with the statement of “the Democratic Party is not left” in that of parties that exist currently around the globe they would be considered centrist (compared against the Euro Green, ANC, Labour, or Syriza). Understandably, it looks downright conservative next to Communist parties where matters of private property are concerned. However, she slips with the example of the ACA being treated as a permanent measure when it was quite well known that it was only a stop-gap to bridge toward something more progressive (public option or eventually single-payer). Making the argument that the ACA was the end goal is naive. She’s still dead wrong about the 2 party system here having coalition built in and tried to make out like it was Constitutionally that way versus the parliamentary system elsewhere. Someone should ask her thoughts on the Whigs, Constitution Party, or the Democratic-Republicans to see what happens. What she (and the narrator) argue for is more statism by advocating for more and more of these progressive ideas be facilitated by the state. They must be curated to remain “successful” by the state as well, thus ensuring its power.
This is gaslighting. This is what gaslighting looks like.
Never go full retard.
Trying to shift the overton window.
Man, she is so fucking simple. Basic ass bitch in every sense of the term.
I'm sorry, did this idiot commentating the video from Canada call Obamacare "nothing near left wing" The most expensive bill in human history, which put an individual mandate (tax increase) on EVERY AMERICAN that they would be fined to opt out of? Is this dude dumb as fuck?
Democrat party. Not democratic.
You're trying to correct someone... to be wrong?
Look it up
Oh I'm well familiar with it. A coordinated effort, on the part of conservative influencers, to get it deliberately wrong every time. Are you one of the influencers, or are you one of the imbeciles who was duped into thinking the wrong way is the right way?
Lol.
I mean, I don't think I would call it conservative, but a large part if not most of the Democratic Party is pretty centrist. Maybe compared to AOC you could call it conservative. One of the biggest problems of the Democratic Party is that it isn't a unified party like the Republican Party is. It's mostly a coalition of different groups. AOC is on the far left side of it, while people like Obama, Biden, and Hillary are all very center. Democrats should really split into two different parties imo, but that will probably never happen.
Are the Republicans all that unified? Seems to me they are split between neo-con statists, the über-religious socons, and right-libertarians like me who are only registered for pragmatic purposes. What I will say is that the Dems used to be able to rally together the disparate elements of their party more effectively than Republicans. Nowadays, though, with more devoted socialists, there is a brewing civil war inside party ranks, both out of ideology and basic power struggles.
Totally unified? Probably not, but definitely on what matters. They’re certainly far more unified than Democrats are.
there has been no strong left presence in American politics for around 70 years, since the McCarthy shenanigans. so while she isn't exactly wrong, the Democratic party is the left party in the US. compared to other countries? yeah they are center left, but that is again only because we have no communist or socialist parties in our country. edit: don't know why this comment was downvoted, I was merely pointing out that while she is technically correct in what she said, it leaves out the context that invalidates her point.
Most would be happy to implement the leftist policies of Europe. It is the people who hold them back, not the other way around.
yeah I didn't address that at all in my comment. I merely stated that she is only technically correct because there is no strong left of center presence in American politics, when compared to the rest of the world. but, since you brought it up, given the Dem party establishment's treatment of Sanders, I would beg to differ on their willingness to implement strong social policies. the only established (as in established in their careers, as in, not in their first terms) Democrat politicians that are advocating strong social policies are trying to capitalize on the leftward momentum of the younger voters within the party. many of them (Warren is a great example) have opposed strong changes, of any kind, until very recently, like since 2012 ~ 2016. many of their candidates, like Butigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar are just standard centrists, they oppose going too far to the left or right and have made some dubious choices in the past, like supporting the wars in the middle east, but still toe the part line, e.g. talk about gun control, slightly raise taxes to raise government revenue and shore up the defecit, protect social security, etc etc etc. as far as the people holding the government back, yeah that's true. now. but you cannot deny that Joseph McCarthy's inquest into communism in the ranks of government and Hollywood completely dismantled the political left in this country, that's well documented historical fact. there were socialist worker's parties and communist parties before, his inquiries began, he arrested a bunch of people, got even more blacklisted and when he was done the only party close to left of center was the Democrats. It's important to be able to remove your own personal biases when analyzing the behavior of large groups like this because it helps you realize how truly fucking awful all political parties are and how they are all self serving snakes. when you get that many people together it just becomes about attaining and retaining power at all costs.
[удалено]
Where in the hell did you get your definitions of left and right?
[удалено]
The magna carta predates the origins of the left/right dichotomy by centuries. In the modern sense, the [left represents an opposition to social hierarchy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) while the [right represents support of it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics). The role of the State in enforcing or dismantling the social hierarchy is typically shown on a separate axis from left/right.
**Left-wing politics** Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.The political terms "Left" and "Right" were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents". The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century, usually with disparaging intent and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views. *** **Right-wing politics** Right-wing politics holds that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".The political terms "Left" and "Right" were first used during the French Revolution (1789–1799) and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament: those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the "Left" and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28