If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

My new hero. He's sacrificed so much for what he believes in. He bootstrapped his way from benchwarmer to the new face of Nike.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

tbh I never understood why anyone gave a fuck about him kneeling. All the good white Christian conservatives applauded that religious guy for kneeling in prayer during a game, but this guy kneels in a silent protest about something he believes in and everyone loses their shit. If it's not proof of a deeply-ingrained, closeted racism within the mainline Republican party, then it's at least proof that sports are an absolute cancer that serve no purpose outside of scratching the collective biological urge towards tribalism and love for authority. I'm glad he's making $$$$$$ over doing basically nothing, hope he rides it to the bank.

 

[rms]

Haha yeah. You see a lot of "go back to Africa" real quick on this discussion.

But then he turned out to be a prejudiced and selectively caring quasi Bernie Berkely bro and that was it for me. Hate when people act like he's a genius, he's said some genuinely stupid things but that'll never get touched because of the flag

My favorite is when people say it's not about the flag and his quote is "I won't stand for a country that oppresses black people" lol

 

[CiG]

I don't give a shit about the kneeling, though the irony that people think he has the right to do it while at the same time arguing that you have no first amendment rights to protect your speech from a corporation is there and hard to ignore.

It's funny to me that a bunch of rich as fuck black people are using this protest to make mega-dollars. The spirit of Sharpton is alive and well.

And again, what the fuck has he even sacrificed?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

...while at the same time arguing that you have no first amendment rights to protect your speech from a corporation...

What is this referring to?

afaik Kaepernick never engaged in rhetoric anywhere near the level of Sharpton. But I don't follow the guy so maybe I'm wrong. I agree that he's not really a hero or whatever, though there were still social pressures involved that most people wouldn't have defied without somewhat else doing it first. The fact that half the country shit themselves over it is a testament to that.

 

[CiG]

He was a nothing, background noise quarterback. When was the last time he even played? He's dogshit, and now he's the new face of Nike lmao. It's just funny to me that a player who was literally slipping into obscurity is now in the headlines, getting tons of publicity, money, sponsorships.

Essentially by doing this Nike made a political statement and political statements generate political statements in response. So as much as others are shitting themselves over this, it's just as ridiculous that people defending him think there should be no reaction.

What is this referring to?

And that's just referring to people on the left who fight back against the right when they complain about Roseanne being fired for Tweets or James Damore getting fired for his memo. Everybody seems to want the right to free speech at a job (like Colin and his kneeling that the NFL tried to put a stop to) unless it's related to someone they dislike, then they become constitutionalist lawyers.

 

[Dak]

 

[Dak]

You're not talking about climate change or global warming though; you're talking about local weather patterns. A warm spell in a particular region might be good for locals in some way, shape, or form, but such localized experiences as "good" or "bad" don't translate into an assessment of whether global warming is "good" or "bad." They're two completely different scales.

It really sounds like you're upset that people are giving so much attention to climate change and less attention to other matters. That's a reason to emphasize other matters, but not a reason to detract from climate concerns.

A warm spell is good in some places, bad in others. I am irritated people are myopic. It's a problem of democracy+IQ as well as pre-selected elites and dogma. Climate is one among many issues but people are simply slightly smarter monkeys, as some monkeys are intent on telling us.

Can you give an example of this de-civilizational impulse?

This isn't news. It was basically the concluding theme of Mad Men.

But I'd think you'd support sustainable alternatives that involve the development of new or emerging markets.

Then they must not exist.

NIMBYism, anti-nuclear, etc. Nuclear is our catapult. Energy "sustainability" is a pipedream at our current point.

So again, the question is: do we focus on getting people to consider the future moment when, as you put it, "the water starts rushing though the streets"--or do we let governmental policies take the initiative, even if the citizens affected aren't happy about it (e.g. increased taxes for reinforced infrastructure, safety precautions during storm seasons, targeted regulations on the food industry, etc.)?

I offered a clear-cut policy and action connection to promised climate change problems. Your response was nothing of the sort (taxes and bans).

 

[The Ozzman]

View attachment 15799

My new hero. He's sacrificed so much for what he believes in. He bootstrapped his way from benchwarmer to the new face of Nike.

They could at least use someone who actually sacrificed everything like these dudes

Killdozer!

 

[rms]

Tillman got.shot by his own dudes lol

 

[CiG]

Hail the killdozer, it sacrificed so much for us all.

 

[Einherjar86]

A warm spell is good in some places, bad in others. I am irritated people are myopic. It's a problem of democracy+IQ as well as pre-selected elites and dogma. Climate is one among many issues but people are simply slightly smarter monkeys, as some monkeys are intent on telling us.

Again, I'm not saying that warm and cold spells aren't locally good or bad. I'm saying that's not the same thing as "global warming." You seem to be mistakenly equating value judgments on local weather with value judgments on global warming in totum. These are two entirely different things. A farmer can't extrapolate that global warming is a good thing just because she experiences a good season due to weather. That experience doesn't translate into how we assess the dangers of global warming.

This isn't being myopic, unless I'm woefully misunderstanding you.

NIMBYism, anti-nuclear, etc. Nuclear is our catapult. Energy "sustainability" is a pipedream at our current point.

It's difficult to follow the logic of your responses. I take it that NIMBYism (?) and anti-nuclear (anti-nuclear what?) are de-civilizational? And nuclear is our catapult to what?

Total energy sustainability might be a pipedream, but that's not an argument against pursuing specific sustainability efforts, especially if they're market-oriented.

I offered a clear-cut policy and action connection to promised climate change problems. Your response was nothing of the sort (taxes and bans).

You did? I apologize, I missed that.

My comments about bans and taxes were very rough caricatures of what happens (or is likely to happen) if we leave things entirely to governmental institutions. It would be better if a strong grassroots movement complemented the political measures, since this would provide more support at the community level.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Tillman also became highly skeptical of the military and patriotism more generally not long after being swept up in the post-9/11 fervor. It would be great if people would stop exploiting his angular face for political ends he himself would disagree with. kthanks

And it's not a racist system, eh?

 

[The Ozzman]

Tillman also became highly skeptical of the military and patriotism more generally not long after being swept up in the post-9/11 fervor. It would be great if people would stop exploiting his angular face for political ends he himself would disagree with. kthanks

Subject of some conspiracy theories that he was ordered to be killed. Dude still gave up a lucrative career in the NFL to serve regardless of his views on the military and patriotism.

 

[rms]

Kaepernick: "let me make this inspirational video all about me"

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1037387722107830272

 

[Dak]

Again, I'm not saying that warm and cold spells aren't locally good or bad. I'm saying that's not the same thing as "global warming." You seem to be mistakenly equating value judgments on local weather with value judgments on global warming in totum. These are two entirely different things. A farmer can't extrapolate that global warming is a good thing just because she experiences a good season due to weather. That experience doesn't translate into how we assess the dangers of global warming.

This isn't being myopic, unless I'm woefully misunderstanding you.

But aren't the negatives ultimately local? It's bad for X person because the seas will flood their home, or it will be too hot to live there, etc. etc. Even "weather being more chaotic" doesn't really mean much without loading it with all sorts of baggage.

It's difficult to follow the logic of your responses. I take it that NIMBYism (?) and anti-nuclear (anti-nuclear what?) are de-civilizational? And nuclear is our catapult to what?

Total energy sustainability might be a pipedream, but that's not an argument against pursuing specific sustainability efforts, especially if they're market-oriented.

You did? I apologize, I missed that.

My comments about bans and taxes were very rough caricatures of what happens (or is likely to happen) if we leave things entirely to governmental institutions. It would be better if a strong grassroots movement complemented the political measures, since this would provide more support at the community level.

Sorry, the comments on NIMBYism etc weren't well clarified. The best Energy Return on Investment (EROI) technology we have is nuclear power. The two other forms that are passable but a far cry are hydro and oil. All three of these are and have been under attack for reasons good and bad, while the pipe dreams like solar and wind keep getting pushed. We should be expanding nuclear capabilities, not building wind and solars farms. Yes there's the radioactive waste issue, but that's a manageable problem when looking at the cost/benefits. But lets build wind farms that kill birds, change the local climate, and generate significant emissions in construction, transport, and maintenance.

Clear, directed policy would be moving cities near the coast away from the coast, and not just away from the coast but specifically to higher ground. This is even a very centralizing sort of policy wonks would like, because then you could "design perfect cities". Even though JC Scott would probably throw a fit lol. But no, let's shuffle the carbon outputs around with a market in carbon credits.

And it's not a racist system, eh?

Wat?

 

[Einherjar86]

But aren't the negatives ultimately local? It's bad for X person because the seas will flood their home, or it will be too hot to live there, etc. etc. Even "weather being more chaotic" doesn't really mean much without loading it with all sorts of baggage.

The negatives are ultimately local in the sense that they're experienced by individuals who can only be in one location (generally speaking).

But just as localized positives can't be extrapolated in order to make value judgments about global warming (e.g. I had a good season due to weather this year, maybe global warming is good too), neither can localized negatives. For examples, if the climate were changing in a manner that's generally good and someone experienced a random bout of dangerous weather, it wouldn't make sense to extrapolate from that single isolated event an overall trend of worsening climate. People assess value to things based on localized individual experience, but these experiences don't translate to the scale of global warming.

In the case of global warming, it's helpful to be able to make associations between local weather patterns and overall climate shift. When people have an emotional investment in their property, their future, their children's future, etc. then appealing to pathos can be an effective way to communicate. But it doesn't replace the complexity of the overall picture, which isn't easily imaginable in a local sense. What can be said is that worsening conditions will become increasingly frequent while better conditions will become increasingly rare. This accounts (in a simplistic way) for the overall trend while also accounting for local experiences.

Sorry, the comments on NIMBYism etc weren't well clarified. The best Energy Return on Investment (EROI) technology we have is nuclear power. The two other forms that are passable but a far cry are hydro and oil. All three of these are and have been under attack for reasons good and bad, while the pipe dreams like solar and wind keep getting pushed. We should be expanding nuclear capabilities, not building wind and solars farms. Yes there's the radioactive waste issue, but that's a manageable problem when looking at the cost/benefits. But lets build wind farms that kill birds, change the local climate, and generate significant emissions in construction, transport, and maintenance.

Have you read Paul Hawken's book Drawdown? It comprehensively, albeit concisely, compares findings from numerous studies and researchers over a plethora of proposed energy solutions (and other sustainable efforts).

Hawken includes nuclear energy as one combatant to global warming, while acknowledging the risk. By all accounts, pursuing nuclear energy will reduce emissions by 16.09 gigatons (by the year 2050), cost roughly $.88 billion and ultimately save $1.7 trillion. This is a serious option that climate researchers do consider.

They also consider wind power, which--according to research--will reduce CO2 by 84.6 gigatons (by the year 2050, onshore only), cost roughly $1.23 trillion and save $7.4 trillion.

Ultimately, Drawdown doesn't encourage pursuing only one option, but a combination. This is more plausible and feasible than an all-or-nothing approach.

Clear, directed policy would be moving cities near the coast away from the coast, and not just away from the coast but specifically to higher ground. This is even a very centralizing sort of policy wonks would like, because then you could "design perfect cities". Even though JC Scott would probably throw a fit lol. But no, let's shuffle the carbon outputs around with a market in carbon credits.

I don't see why population migration is a bad option. It's just an incredibly complex one, and then of course you run into the problem of regulating the movements of vast quantities of people. Something that should be considered, I'd say.

 

[Dak]

The negatives are ultimately local in the sense that they're experienced by individuals who can only be in one location (generally speaking).

But just as localized positives can't be extrapolated in order to make value judgments about global warming (e.g. I had a good season due to weather this year, maybe global warming is good too), neither can localized negatives. For examples, if the climate were changing in a manner that's generally good and someone experienced a random bout of dangerous weather, it wouldn't make sense to extrapolate from that single isolated event an overall trend of worsening climate. People assess value to things based on localized individual experience, but these experiences don't translate to the scale of global warming.

In the case of global warming, it's helpful to be able to make associations between local weather patterns and overall climate shift. When people have an emotional investment in their property, their future, their children's future, etc. then appealing to pathos can be an effective way to communicate. But it doesn't replace the complexity of the overall picture, which isn't easily imaginable in a local sense. What can be said is that worsening conditions will become increasingly frequent while better conditions will become increasingly rare. This accounts (in a simplistic way) for the overall trend while also accounting for local experiences.

I know it's easy for things to drift conversationally when dealing with even a straightforward topic, much less something complex and not all that well understood. It may be that, as you simplified it, there will be an imbalance between better and worse conditions, with worse conditions becoming more prevalent. But based on what? How much of the worse conditions has little to do with warming or what contributed to it? Other human behaviors and value judgments contribute to assessing and generating "worse".

Have you read Paul Hawken's book Drawdown? It comprehensively, albeit concisely, compares findings from numerous studies and researchers over a plethora of proposed energy solutions (and other sustainable efforts).


I don't see why population migration is a bad option. It's just an incredibly complex one, and then of course you run into the problem of regulating the movements of vast quantities of people. Something that should be considered, I'd say.

I'll check it out. I want to circle back to the original issue which is my contention that the public dialogue is pseudo-religious in nature. Drawdown may present a nonpolemical, serious but measured approach to the presumed problem. Scientists studying climate likely report in measured, serious tone as well. But what does the dialogue look like? Unserious at best, actually environmentally damaging at worst (the carbon emissions to travel to protests, the trash left after, etc). There's not even cohesiveness on the humanist benefits (Save the whales or some other animal is the selling point, and I'd wager many to most activists don't have kids they are concerned for anyway).

These same persons likely live on or near the coast, and would flip if there were a policy of relocating away from coastlines. The dialogue is unserious in a real sense, so the only other avenue for expressing the intensity of feelings is to adopt a religious zeal with lose trotting out of factoids untethered from coherent argument. Not all that dissimilar to arguing to an agnostic or athiest that they must be afraid of Hell, while living like a "sinner".

 

[CiG]

And it's not a racist system, eh?

lol.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know it's easy for things to drift conversationally when dealing with even a straightforward topic, much less something complex and not all that well understood. It may be that, as you simplified it, there will be an imbalance between better and worse conditions, with worse conditions becoming more prevalent. But based on what? How much of the worse conditions has little to do with warming or what contributed to it? Other human behaviors and value judgments contribute to assessing and generating "worse".

I'll check it out. I want to circle back to the original issue which is my contention that the public dialogue is pseudo-religious in nature. Drawdown may present a nonpolemical, serious but measured approach to the presumed problem. Scientists studying climate likely report in measured, serious tone as well. But what does the dialogue look like? Unserious at best, actually environmentally damaging at worst (the carbon emissions to travel to protests, the trash left after, etc). There's not even cohesiveness on the humanist benefits (Save the whales or some other animal is the selling point, and I'd wager many to most activists don't have kids they are concerned for anyway).

These same persons likely live on or near the coast, and would flip if there were a policy of relocating away from coastlines. The dialogue is unserious in a real sense, so the only other avenue for expressing the intensity of feelings is to adopt a religious zeal with lose trotting out of factoids untethered from coherent argument. Not all that dissimilar to arguing to an agnostic or athiest that they must be afraid of Hell, while living like a "sinner".

Let's leave it at that. I understand your objections but don't agree with them (or with all of them).