If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Obviously at some point you could max out the carrying capacity of the earth. But Malthus was wrong about that number before. We probably won't know until after the fact.

All of that ignores that population growth is already leveling off in most of the world, we just have about ~100 years before things start going the other direction if the current trends continue - unless suddenly the high birthrate Muslim countries start picking up the slack left by everyone else.

I like the sterile talk about "a lack of water in key places". What makes something a key place is something that we have more control over. Like HBB said, stop trying to turn the desert into a lush lawn (for instance).

 

[Einherjar86]

It looks to me like you're making tangential oversights into central aporias.

Obviously at some point you could max out the carrying capacity of the earth. But Malthus was wrong about that number before. We probably won't know until after the fact.

Talk about tautological.

All of that ignores that population growth is already leveling off in most of the world, we just have about ~100 years before things start going the other direction if the current trends continue - unless suddenly the high birthrate Muslim countries start picking up the slack left by everyone else.

That wasn't the point of the quoted sections, and it probably will have very little impact on the environmental changes we've recorded over the past century or so. And according to Gray, it doesn't matter whether population growth is declining because the population has already reached critical mass. It isn't ignoring anything if the point is moot to begin with.

I like the sterile talk about "a lack of water in key places". What makes something a key place is something that we have more control over. Like HBB said, stop trying to turn the desert into a lush lawn (for instance).

Gray isn't talking about California, or any locations that are trying to turn oases into oceans (in a manner of speaking). Again, this is tangential to his argument.

 

[Dak]

Well as far as I can tell he's claiming we are past carrying capacity absent petroleum production, and that petroleum production (resource harvesting in general) is significantly intertwined with politics etc. Well duh. I'm addressing "tangential" stuff because there's nothing interesting there otherwise.

 

[Einherjar86]

I quoted it originally because you (and others) expressed skepticism that political responses to climate change may also yield consequences for the threat of global terrorism. I think Gray cites some convincing evidence for this being the case, and provides some compelling reasons why.

I guess your interests shift with the wind.

 

[Dak]

I quoted it originally because you (and others) expressed skepticism that political responses to climate change may also yield consequences for the threat of global terrorism. I think Gray cites some convincing evidence for this being the case, and provides some compelling reasons why.

I guess your interests shift with the wind.

"Global Terrorism" is vague enough, as is "Climate Change", that I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to suggest some sort of connection. But going green in the US isn't going to alter Wahhabist doctrines.

 

[rms]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

Pretty long article, but I think the author is limited on establishing the myth creation and challenging the idea that social media/liberal institutions aren't interested/active in a "PC culture." Her bias against Trump is so strong that it causes her to fail to establish her thesis fully.

Interested to hear other's, especially Ein, as I think he would agree with her premise at the very least.

two quotes from the article;

Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.

These pieces committed many of the same fallacies that their predecessors from the 1990s had. They cherry-picked anecdotes and caricatured the subjects of their criticism. They complained that other people were creating and enforcing speech codes, while at the same time attempting to enforce their own speech codes. Their writers designated themselves the arbiters of what conversations or political demands deserved to be taken seriously, and which did not. They contradicted themselves in the same way: their authors continually complained, in highly visible publications, that they were being silenced.

 

[Dak]

I disagree strongly. While there are certainly outlets for "non-PC talk", the established mouthpieces are all incredibly bound by as certain PCness. Furthermore, it is detrimental career wise to be in any way non-PC, insofar as it is vocalized in particular fields. This has both selection effects and production effects in the sciences and in the media and in politics. The author of that paper is so immune to the danger that they are blind to the existence. Or, to attempt to be evenhanded - they are so removed that they do not have the opportunity to see it in effect.

 

[Einherjar86]

Political correctness is a genuine problem, not a fantasy drummed up by the right.

And those on the right don't handle it well at all. Many purposefully go out of their way to be offensive, which is juvenile.

I'd say the platforms for PC and non-PC speech are nearly evenly split, 50/50.

 

[CiG]

50/50 by what reasoning? I agree with the rest of your post though.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, the internet merely reflects popular opinion, which is pretty divided.

As far as legitimate news, the left has cable news except FOX (the most-watched cable news network in America) and several major online magazines. The right has talk radio, which is a major source of news for conservatives and very extensive; it also has several significant online sites, such as Breitbart, Free Republic, National Review, etc. These all get linked on Facebook fairly regularly.

All things considered, I'd say the access is pretty even for both sides.

 

[CiG]

The left has Hollywood.

 

[Einherjar86]

The left doesn't "have" Hollywood. It just has left-wing actors.

 

[Dak]

Well, the internet merely reflects popular opinion, which is pretty divided.

Agreed.

As far as legitimate news
All things considered, I'd say the access is pretty even for both sides.

Not when most "legitimate news sites" say all others aren't. Half of the news sites I visit aren't deemed legitimate but I don't think any are legitimate. I put them in a dialectic and *IF* I must weight them I weight "illegitimate* heavier because it's less likely to be influenced by power organs because legitimacy has a premium placed on it.

The left doesn't "have" Hollywood. It just has left-wing actors.

So if you say it "just" has left wing actors that means these left wing actors are working for and enacting parts written by right wing directors and writers. Who are these people and why do these left wing actors somehow get jobs and how are they able to so twist Hollywood products to leftwing ideals (yes I know every hollywood production isn't perfectly conforming to Stalinist perfection)?

 

[Einherjar86]

Not when most "legitimate news sites" say all others aren't. Half of the news sites I visit aren't deemed legitimate but I don't think any are legitimate. I put them in a dialectic and *IF* I must weight them I weight "illegitimate* heavier because it's less likely to be influenced by power organs because legitimacy has a premium placed on it.

I was lumping everything from talk radio to CNN under the "legitimate" umbrella. Obviously conservative talk radio laughs at CNN's legitimacy, so the door swings both ways.

So if you say it "just" has left wing actors that means these left wing actors are working for and enacting parts written by right wing directors and writers. Who are these people and why do these left wing actors somehow get jobs and how are they able to so twist Hollywood products to leftwing ideals (yes I know every hollywood production isn't perfectly conforming to Stalinist perfection)?

My "just" was alternative, not exclusive. I think that Hollywood is made of liberals and conservatives, and the majority of films it churns out are moderate, if anything. Tame, watered-down reflections of political controversies.

At its most extreme, it puts out movies like Twelve Years a Slave. On the other hand, it also puts out movies like American Sniper and Lone Survivor.

 

[Dak]

I was lumping everything from talk radio to CNN under the "legitimate" umbrella. Obviously conservative talk radio laughs at CNN's legitimacy, so the door swings both ways.

I was thinking more of blogs or aggregators rather than sites. Republican mouthpieces have communists outnumbered on AM talk radio, and the listenership of 10AM-4PM AM radio compared to the http readership of FOXNEWS probably correlates really nicely, so I don't really find that sort of analysis interesting.

I probably don't read much, seriously, anything "legitimate", which some would include your personal blog(s), although I would include your blog within what I would call serious thinking material, even if I don't find the conclusions legitimate .

My "just" was alternative, not exclusive. I think that Hollywood is made of liberals and conservatives, and the majority of films it churns out are moderate, if anything. Tame, watered-down reflections of political controversies.

At its most extreme, it puts out movies like Twelve Years a Slave. On the other hand, it also puts out movies like American Sniper and Lone Survivor.

I don't think Hollywood has (hardly) any conservatives, because those sorts of people aren't interested in flights of fantasy (yeah, I know, tautology - but I think product also bears evidence). I do think it has nationalists and moneymakerists which create the sort of stupid different fantastical productions like American Sniper.

 

[CiG]

Citing Clint Eastwood works is pretty useless, he's too well established to really be effected by the bias in Hollywood.

 

[Einherjar86]

I probably don't read much, seriously, anything "legitimate", which some would include your personal blog(s), although I would include your blog within what I would call serious thinking material, even if I don't find the conclusions legitimate .

Haha, well... thanks. I don't consider my blogs legitimately newsworthy. They're highly speculative.

I don't think Hollywood has (hardly) any conservatives, because those sorts of people aren't interested in flights of fantasy (yeah, I know, tautology - but I think product also bears evidence). I do think it has nationalists and moneymakerists which create the sort of stupid different fantastical productions like American Sniper.

It has more than you might think, and I would claim that it has historically contributed to the shape of conservativism in this country.

Citing Clint Eastwood works is pretty useless, he's too well established to really be effected by the bias in Hollywood.

That's exactly why it isn't useless, in fact. He's a major conservative voice in Hollywood, and he got there by exploiting a conservative streak in the demand for popular entertainment. You can't just say he doesn't count because he's too popular.

But aside from Eastwood, you have Michael Bay films, Peter Berg films, Paul Greengrass films (to name three directors) all of which draw tons of money and none of which care about being politically correct.

 

[no country for old wainds]

12 YEARS A SLAVE isn't even close to being one of the most liberal hollywood movies. i've been unfortunate enough to see quite a few of the things that were such transparently manipulative propaganda, doing more harm to their own cause than good, that even the award voters steered clear. i've seen some tory movies that were like that too. i would agree that there is a conservative streak in hollywood (and in american film criticism which i follow p extensively) but it's certainly liberal-leaning in the main.

 

[no country for old wainds]

actually it's probably giving hollywood too much credit to talk about a liberal/conservative divide tbh. i don't think most of them have some clearly thought through ideology, they're just typical guilty white people patting each others' backs over token gestures of compassion - a lot of these same people will also connect with conservative movies if they're packaged in a way that gives them an opportunity to feel righteous and paternalistic or w/e.

 

[Einherjar86]

12 YEARS A SLAVE isn't even close to being one of the most liberal hollywood movies. i've been unfortunate enough to see quite a few of the things that were such transparently manipulative propaganda, doing more harm to their own cause than good, that even the award voters steered clear. i've seen some tory movies that were like that too. i would agree that there is a conservative streak in hollywood (and in american film criticism which i follow p extensively) but it's certainly liberal-leaning in the main.

Ha, I probably should have thought harder, but just typed the first thing that came into my head.

Yes, Hollywood - or its performance of itself, at least (talk about meta) - leans to the left. I was trying to resist the claim that it's a bastion of leftist position/propaganda. It produces some of that, surely; but it also has plenty of room for right-leaning films and writers.