“Hey, I’m just asking questions!”
Give ‘em the ol’ Cask of Amontillado
best revenge you could have
- they’re aware of what’s happening
- they know it’s you
- it’s long and drawn out
Do you want your brick wall in red or brown?
the local brick store has these nice black fireproofs.
I bet you could get them wall themselves in if you told them it would piss off the liberals.
I couldn’t understand how the holocaust could happen until I witnessed how much joy conservatives take in teasing people for trying to care about others. Fucking demented freaks.
The thousand injuries of Fascists I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.
For the love of Trump, Montresor!
With cheap nuclear energy we could have had electric cars for 50 years thus massively reducing global warming.
The same people who protested for environment protection protested against nuclear energy.
We could not have had electric cars for 50 years because there were no viable electric cars 50 years ago. The lack of electricity was not the reason.
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap. Modern reactors (those that are actually good and don’t explode and don’t produce eternal poison) are so expensive that no energy company wants to build them (unless they get a shit ton of subsidies).
If we build more reactors 50 years ago we would have a lot of 50 year old reactors that were designed to last less than 50 years. And upgrading or demolishing them is expensive as fuck.
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap
The problem is capitalism, not nuclear.
So the problem is capitalism here?
Must be, because all those reactors in non-capitalist places are running just fine and none of them have ever exploded.
Not even one! You can tell this because HBO never made a show about it.
One of the glaring problems is there are “energy companies”. Energy should be socialized like food housing education etc. there is no room for companies in this space.
In this instance, no.
To back up your claim about EV non-viability, I would point to the ~2000 Ford Ranger. While the GM EV-1 gets the spotlight, it was a weird car with a specific purpose. The Ranger, on the other hand, was a very normal vehicle with an EV powertrain shoved in where the gasoline wasn’t. A few hundred were made. It used lead acid batteries, the only viable option at the time. NiMH and NiCd weren’t good for the amperage needed and were expensive by comparison. The Ranger had about a 60 mile range at best and I think 60mph top speed. Great for parks and municipal trucky things, not great for the gen pop. That’s just 25 years ago. Sure, one could argue that the main manufacturers could have done better with actual dedication and less comfort with cheap gasoline, but it doesn’t change that lithium wasn’t commercially viable yet. No other magical source could have appeared either, as even with the current EV push, Li-ion is still the top choice.
Lithium isn’t the long term answer either unless you’re fine with swapping middle eastern and russian human rights abusers with east Asia human rights abusers. The trade war this year has proven china knows right where to squeeze.
What other realistic alternatives do you suggest?
Solar only works when there’s sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it’s important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn’t for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
A combination of various renewables (solar, wind, hydro in its various forms), combined with sustainable high density storage and a global network of power delivery with multiple redundancies is the solution.
But it will obviously not happen as it isn’t in shareholders’ interest to have sustainable, cheap energy.
Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.
Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!
most reliable
Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks. Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.
least harmful
How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?
Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.
Can you tell me which animals were made of uranium? I’m dying to know.
I assume you mean “non-renewable” but nothing is renewable on a sufficient time scale.
And if your argument is mining…well, re-read the end of your own message.
fossil fuel.
one of us is confused on definitions. i could have sworn fossil fuels were petroleum derivatives, not fuels with harmful byproducts.
petroleum derivatives
That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.
I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.
aww i love it when i’m not the only confused one
About safety: Nuclear reactors don’t really have many problems, there were literally 2 incidents in the last…idk 100 years lol, 1 was because of a tsunami, the other was because some stupid idiot thought “okay let’s put unprepared people to do stuff to the reactor” and also said reactor wasn’t as secure as modern reactors.
Nuclear energy overall do less harm than fossil ever did and some want to switch from uranium to torium which is more safe, solar energy isn’t that great, low efficency, high maintance and take up a lot of space, moreover, the discussion about plants is stupid because it does not mention the amount of electricity used daily by millions of human. Currently, I would say that hydroelectric power is the most worthwhile renewable energy source, followed by wind power.
In any case, we are talking about using more nuclear energy, not just nuclear energy, so the argument of decentralisation does not hold much water. (I would add that nuclear power stations are much smaller nowadays, but more are being built, see France).
I’m not against using nuclear energy, but we should focus even more on the safety aspect, especially long-term. It costs a lot to build and improve the reactors and safety mechanisms, and when money dictates everything, things are going to get done with the minimum cost somewhere, which leaves a lot of room for errors.
We can’t exactly prevent earthquakes or tsunamis and whatnot, and global warming is even making sure the weather conditions are going to cause more extreme storms and all that… but the biggest issue is money religion, basically. At this rate there will be reactors build the cheapest way possible, and even the people hired to be responsible will be chosen what’s cheapest… Not to mention all the possibilities to save money in storing the nuclear waste.
People are already starting to forget a bit too much about how dangerous nuclear radiation is since even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in the end, and at this rate we’re not going to stop rampant capitalism either, before something can go terribly wrong…
I guess the point is, we’re really, really stupid, and nuclear energy combined with stupidity has quite the infinite potential for disasters. Which we should consider a lot more for things to stay safe in the future too
2
For large values of 2, yes. There are 9 listed here, and more if you include those that didn’t cause any deaths (such as Three Mile Island).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
Have you met people? These will both happen again. You cannot trust people.
Aha! I can deduce from your opposition to self-proclaimed environmentalists that you must hate the environment. I am very smart.
Is this a form of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Let’s make it more complicated:
Ukraine is fighting a fascist Russia, or at least a fascism supporting Russia. Russia is, by their own account, fighting fascists in Ukraine.
For one of the countries, can it be said that the real fascists are the ones against fascism?
I don’t think that one applies, no. I’m honestly not sure which or if really any logical fallacy applies here, but we don’t have to accept others’ false claims at face value - sometimes environmentalists don’t actually want what’s best for the environment, and sometimes fascists will lie and deflect in order to distract you from the fascist things they’re doing.
I mean in the case of Russia and Ukraine, they are both fascists. But if you want an example thats less controversial, the nazi invasion of fascist Hungary.
Ukraine has fascists in the country, yes, just like every country in the world. In Russia the fascists are the ones in charge. Trying to draw an equivalence between the two to make Russia look like something other than a ruthless aggressor is a perfect example of fascists lying and deflecting.
Zelenskyy literally said he wants Ukraine to be the Israel of Europe. There’s not much you can point to on domestic policy in Russia that hasn’t been implemented in Ukraine. Ukraine being controlled by a fascist billionaire (like Russia) doesn’t change that millions of regular people are paying the price for Russia’s invasion, which needs to be stopped with as little bloodshed as possible and the self-determination of the people in affected regions respected.
The joke works better when we’re not witnessing antifascists getting bricked up day after day.
I’m bricked up right now shawty
I can hear that funky baseline now.
They are a brick, house. That Marduk is stacked and that’s a fact. Ain’t holding nothing back.
okay i need to remember to look at usernames because I was really confused why we were celebrating ancient babylonian gods and their mighty mightiness.
This argument never made sense to me. The people who say that the new fascism will call itself antifascist also claim to be against fascism so this equals out. It just doesn’t make sense as a gotcha. Antifa is demonstrably against fascistic politics and that’s the gotcha if there is one
One comment I saw eons ago explained it, it went something like this
“Imagine theres a group called Team-No-Bad-Guy. They gather to yell to stop people doing bad guy things. You don’t like those people that they yell at, but you don’t like the non-yelling methods Team-No-Bad-Guy uses sometimes. Team-No-Bad-Guy hears you say this and calls you a bad guy and begin yelling at you. You realize that they can call anyone bad guys and you wonder how things would be for you after the big bad guys were gone.”
That’s because they’re lying.
This argument never made sense to me.
Don’t worry, it’s just because they’re not arguing from a place of good faith. They are often not even serious or thoughtful enough to even understand that they’re arguing in bad faith, it’s just they have strong feelings and not enough capability to form logical arguments in their heads to fight their own discomfort with foreigners or people of color or having to respect people’s gender identity. (It’s almost ALWAYS about race or sex.)
This is why centrism is dead. There is no “middle ground” between having paralyzing hangups and emotion-driven policies and not having these things. Either you get incredibly sweaty and ashamed watching interracial cuckolding porn or you’re chill and don’t care. There is very little overlap.
To me it seems at least kind of suspicious if someone has a shared hobby with fascists of sharing videos of people being assaulted or killed and talking about how much they deserved it, and are enforcing groupthink in a similar way. It feels like they are playing the same game and must share many of the same ways of thinking, even if they are nominally on different teams. Maybe that isn’t what Antifa is really about, but people I’ve known who self identified with it have been like that. I worry that engaging with and relating to politics that way is all heading to a similar place regardless of on-paper beliefs, so the way this comic depicts a physical refusal to even acknowledge the thought is kind of chilling.
Hey dipshit. They are literally sending people to concentration camps right fucking now. Stop with this “but maybe in the future bullshit”.
If you’re not American I’ll bet your country also has a growing fascist subset because just look at the state of politics the world over. We can talk about future fascists once we deal with the ones that are literally in front of us following the same playbook as last time.
I mean, you’re wrong if you think I don’t think these are urgent problems, being caused by fascists. If you’re in a position to effectively resolve them, great, I will give credit to actions that qualify as stuff that is likely to actually work and not be counterproductive.
What I’m talking about is less urgent, but I don’t think inadvertently contributing to fascist culture is the sort of thing that’s a direct solution to urgent problems anyway.
Holy shit. You’re unironically being the guy behind the wall. Quick, Susan, where is my camera!?
Your opinion that nobody deserves to be killed is really rare, historically. King Arthur killed people. Achilles killed people. Moses killed people. Sun Wukong killed people. Superman is probably the first superhero in history who didn’t regularly kill people.
What I’m saying is that people who celebrate violence are normal and your pacifism is a weird and hypocritical trend that won’t be popular for very long.
George Washington understood that. He fought and sent people to their deaths for the freedom you now enjoy. Show some patriotism and appreciate the value of violence.
Your opinion that nobody deserves to be killed is really rare, historically.
Not really: ahimsa from dharmic traditions is ancient. Pacifism isn’t novel: found in Mohist school in Taoism & various ancient cultures. Appeal to force is irrational.
I think you’re mischaracterizing their objection as concerning violence rather than shitty thinking that creates the kinds of problems the thinkers oppose. Injustice regardless of cause is injustice and not what we’re fighting for.
A just cause begins with not abandoning truth, integrity, justice to zealotry that creates the kinds of problems we’re opposing: we can support causes without being assholes.
But nothing you just said is contradictory to celebrating the deaths of Nazis, so that can’t be relevant to this conversation
Celebrating deaths of Nazis wasn’t the point, either, so your irrelevance derailed the conversation & I was setting it back on track while correcting your false assumptions.
The point was zealots share styles of shitty thinking that induce similar shitty tendencies leading to hypocrisy.
To recount, the top comment stated
This argument never made sense to me.
and the comment above yours elaborated on “this argument”
shared hobby with fascists of sharing videos of people being assaulted or killed and talking about how much they deserved it
are enforcing groupthink in a similar way
It feels like they are playing the same game and must share many of the same ways of thinking, even if they are nominally on different teams.
That’s where you fixated on violence instead of getting the general idea as I stated before
you’re mischaracterizing their objection as concerning violence
Zealotry with its baggage of shitty thinking & willingness to endorse injustices isn’t necessary to oppose fascism or support good causes.
Your opinion that nobody deserves to be killed is really rare
My point is more that being fixated on it in that way reflects a mindset that is the same as fascists.
The rest of your comment seems like some kind of joke which is a little funny with your username, but it’s a serious topic so idk.
Here, maybe this will help. I found it just a few posts down:
The fascist mindset is about superiority, not violence. They’re white supremacists. A violent mindset isn’t a fascist mindset, it’s just called being normal.
You should be more concerned with celebrating the violent deeds of the heroes who brought us our liberty. It’s concerning that you don’t love George Washington for all the Redcoats he killed.
Celebrating the deaths of authoritarians is one of those country’s founding values.
The fascist mindset is about superiority, not violence.
Nah, those guys hate themselves, the idea they’re superior is surface level cope. Look at the content right wing extremists are consuming and how they are using it; it’s the emotional weight of violence being employed for self inflicted brain damage, dogmatic cult building through manipulation and artificial trauma eg. hazing.
Well, the left wing is about self-love. It’s about gay pride, and worker solidarity. I’m part of a left wing cult, and our leader, Jesus Christ, tells us to love our neighbours and ourselves, and says we all have the power to move mountains. So I don’t think you need to worry about our violence leading to fascism. It’s right wing groups like capitalists and Christians (followers of Paul) you need to watch out for, because they teach self-hatred and then sell their followers superiority as the cure. Kind of like Zuko from Avatar when Iroh was explaining that his pride was the source of his shame.
Holy shit another guy who considers Paul to be a usurper! There must be dozens of us
Alright well your point is wrong.
I came across a scientific proposal to investigate the issue I think you’re responding to: dangerous ideological thinking that breeds
evidence-resistant dogmatism and intergroup intolerance.
Ideological adherents aren’t necessarily a problem until they become militant in their intolerance to dissent & hostility to self-examination. Their zealotry may lead them to abandon reason (eg, rampant fallacies) & commit injustices for ideological pursuits.
Movements against fascism, theocracy, & persecution of threatened classes can be good at opposing particular problems. However, adherents who fixate can lose sight of the general failure in humanity—ideological extremism—that got us those problems and indulge in the same kind of flawed thinking that creates the kinds of problems they’re opposing: they’re counterproductive & self-defeating. A failure to commit to integrity in the pursuit of truth and to scrutinize & justify efforts rationally (eg, by welcoming self-examination & debate) is a sign of problematic priorities.
An interesting part about the research proposal is it suggests ideological thinking is a general phenomenon with essential qualities distinct from the content of any particular ideology and testing is needed to properly define that phenomenon. It suggests a definition to test that identifies doctrinal & relational components as essential qualities: ideological thinking is
a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating (i.e., doctrinal) and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups (i.e., selectively relational).
In terms of components
- doctrinal component
- description: an absolutist explanation for existing conditions
- prescription: a set of prescriptions for future thought, behavior, & social relations
- relational component
- group identification: strong personal identification with the in-group
- prejudice & hostility: a rejection of nonadherents that often takes the form of hostility and prejudice
Accordingly, an ideologically extreme individual
is one who (a) possesses a rigid, evidence-resistant description of the world, (b) strongly adheres to inflexible prescriptions for how they and others ought to live and act, (c) exhibits intense identification with fellow adherents, and (d) displays active hostility toward nonadherents
whereas an ideologically moderate individual
is one who (a) adopts a description of the world that is flexible and responsive to evidence, (b) does not rely on or impose on others rigid prescriptive rules for living, (c) displays weak or moderate identification with others who believe in similar worldviews, and (d) does not express hostility or prejudice toward dissimilar others.
The way individuals like this blow up when you criticize problematic thinking is typical of ideological extremism: even if you agree with their cause or are an ideologically moderate fellow adherent, they’ll irrationally treat you with the intolerance & hostility of a nonadherent.
I think intellectual humility that respects truth & integrity demands ideological moderation.
While I favor causes to oppose the various particular consequences of problematic thinking that lead to injustices (eg, fascism), I think a higher, more general cause is to oppose & challenge irrational ideological thought wherever it turns up (especially in ourselves): that may be the ultimate enemy.
- doctrinal component
For a second there I thought you did my boy EAP dirty.
Edgar Allan Parsons
Removed by mod
This is formatted horrifically and I legitimately have no idea wtf you are trying to say
Friendly reminder to take your meds.
