Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

Build it out of magnets.

[Starver]

*** Magneto/Mystique 2020 ***

(Or, indeed, Magneto/anybody. But still Mystique.)

[Trekkin]

Are we seriously going to go against that just because HeS a RePuBLiCaN???

No. We're going to go against that because "have more babies so they can find solutions" is another way to hold off on solving the problem, this time on a generational timescale. Gaetz and Alexander's proposals have the same problem, because the Republican playbook is to stay ten steps behind the problem until they leave office or public interest stalls out. That is, in a sense, the core functionality of conservatism.

Solutions exist. They are just not solutions the plutocrats' lapdogs are willing to accept.

[Dunamisdeos]

The idea that he is openly accepting climate change as fact and a move away from coal energy is more than enough for me to support what he's saying.
 
What do babies even have to do with it? Is he going to force everyone to have more babies? Enact a minimum child requirement? Who cares what he has to say about babies, I'll support more Republicans accepting that real, tangible things need to be done about climate change.
 
Besides, he's not advocating having more babies than we are now. He's saying that the idea that having less babies will solve climate change is a defeatist and unrealistic concept (whatever, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that), and that hey maybe we should just stop burning coal all day long, guys.

The USA is place where I can honestly defend the ideas of a guy who shows aquaman memes in congress and this is like one of those realities where the Sliders just nope out of as quickly as they can.

[MrRoboto75]

Are we seriously going to go against that just because HeS a RePuBLiCaN???

No. We're going to go against that because "have more babies so they can find solutions" is another way to hold off on solving the problem, this time on a generational timescale. Gaetz and Alexander's proposals have the same problem, because the Republican playbook is to stay ten steps behind the problem until they leave office or public interest stalls out. That is, in a sense, the core functionality of conservatism.

Solutions exist. They are just not solutions the plutocrats' lapdogs are willing to accept.

In regards to climate change we're probably running out of generations even able to solve the problem.

[wierd]

I don't think you understand the mindset.

It goes something like this:

"Fuck you, I've got mine!"


EG, "I don't care that future generations are well and truly fucked by my actions; I am living like a god-damned king, and that's all that matters! I will be dead by the time those consequences come back with vengeance, so I don't care."


The only time they concern themselves with something, is when it has an immediate consequence-- Either it will make them fabulously wealthy beyond their wildest dreams of avarice-- OR it's not worth the time or energy. (Doubly not worth that energy or time if it makes SOMEBODY ELSE wealthy, and not them.) Conversely, If it has an immediate effect that limits their ability to play hobknob with other plutocrats over who has the most money today, or might have an effect within their lifetime to that end, they are staunchly against it. Especially if the motive for the imposition of that effect is to mitigate or delete a bad that will only affect future generations.


To wit--  Trekkin rightly points out that there are solutions we could be enacting RIGHT NOW to greatly reduce the impacts of climate change-- perhaps even cause a subtle reversal in the trend--- But all of them would result in these people making less money, and so NOOOOOOOOOO BAAD!

The "Future generations must solve this problem!" rhetoric is the softer, less sociopathic way of putting it.  The POINT of making the argument is to diffuse the imperative to upset their status quo, which would directly result in a reduction of their own gains.  Conservatism is essentially the mindset of "Change nothing! It works JUST FINE the way it is!!"  But to understand it, you have to understand the rationale behind that desire.

[Trekkin]

Besides, he's not advocating having more babies than we are now. He's saying that the idea that having less babies will solve climate change is a defeatist and unrealistic concept (whatever, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that), and that hey maybe we should just stop burning coal all day long, guys.

In isolation, yes -- and you're right that this represents a significant step forward. It does not, however, go far enough, and there are good reasons to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. Trump demonstrates many of them. As much as we might not want climate change, and in a broader sense the very ability to consider the scientific consensus when making policy, to be partisan issues, they will always be so simply because liberals want them and hurting liberals has gotten considerable conservative political currency, so we can expect any compromise solution to be overturned by the next batch of Republican elected officials simply because it's red meat for the base. Leaving the Paris accords, gutting the EPA, and mining national monuments all had other groups backing them, but "punking the libtardcuckflakes" was the easy way to sell the base on all of them. Stop using coal, and the next GOP President will campaign on bringing the poor coal miners back to work and besides, screw the libs. Invest in energy research, and the next GOP budget will forbid funding science entirely because it's time those ivory tower coastal liberals got a real job because hey, screw the libs.

There's a method to their madness, too: solving only part of this problem will make it worse for someone. We can't just stop mining coal without putting coal miners out of work, and not all of them can be or want to be retrained, so now the GOP gets to say that either we embrace the socialist babykilling elite snowflake welfare state or we reinvest in American jobs, so vote GOP and screw the libs. The same is true of trucking, air travel, livestock, and all the other industries that are killing the planet and also forming a key part of our economy. What this guy's plan is an attempt to do -- and, again, this is a common feature of all the Republican plans I've seen -- is to implement the most unpopular incremental steps with no attempt to compensate for them, so that they can then campaign on reversing it. After all, if this caused so much strife, imagine what a paradigm shift on the scale of our economy would do! Screw the libs!

In short, we know that the only way we're all going to get out of this mess is to fundamentally overhaul how we consume energy, which necessitates changing how we do business, too, and also how we approach wealth inequality. New technology does nothing if the 99% are too poor to make use of it, and economic incentives do nothing if the 1% can buy their way around them. Anything that falls short of that overhaul will be a politically toxic and ultimately unproductive incentive to swing the pendulum back the other way and screw the libs, and the GOP knows that.

[hector13]

Nwabudike Morgan when

[wierd]

Trump is the idiot version there of already.

(my take on Morgan's "Resources exist to be consumed!" rhetoric is, "OK, why don't you spend ALL of your money RIGHT NOW then.  It's a resource-- Consume it! Spend it all with no care or consideration for the future!")

[Dunamisdeos]

Besides, he's not advocating having more babies than we are now. He's saying that the idea that having less babies will solve climate change is a defeatist and unrealistic concept (whatever, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that), and that hey maybe we should just stop burning coal all day long, guys.

Spoiler: Spoiler'd for length (click to show/hide)

In isolation, yes -- and you're right that this represents a significant step forward. It does not, however, go far enough, and there are good reasons to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. Trump demonstrates many of them. As much as we might not want climate change, and in a broader sense the very ability to consider the scientific consensus when making policy, to be partisan issues, they will always be so simply because liberals want them and hurting liberals has gotten considerable conservative political currency, so we can expect any compromise solution to be overturned by the next batch of Republican elected officials simply because it's red meat for the base. Leaving the Paris accords, gutting the EPA, and mining national monuments all had other groups backing them, but "punking the libtardcuckflakes" was the easy way to sell the base on all of them. Stop using coal, and the next GOP President will campaign on bringing the poor coal miners back to work and besides, screw the libs. Invest in energy research, and the next GOP budget will forbid funding science entirely because it's time those ivory tower coastal liberals got a real job because hey, screw the libs.

There's a method to their madness, too: solving only part of this problem will make it worse for someone. We can't just stop mining coal without putting coal miners out of work, and not all of them can be or want to be retrained, so now the GOP gets to say that either we embrace the socialist babykilling elite snowflake welfare state or we reinvest in American jobs, so vote GOP and screw the libs. The same is true of trucking, air travel, livestock, and all the other industries that are killing the planet and also forming a key part of our economy. What this guy's plan is an attempt to do -- and, again, this is a common feature of all the Republican plans I've seen -- is to implement the most unpopular incremental steps with no attempt to compensate for them, so that they can then campaign on reversing it. After all, if this caused so much strife, imagine what a paradigm shift on the scale of our economy would do! Screw the libs!

In short, we know that the only way we're all going to get out of this mess is to fundamentally overhaul how we consume energy, which necessitates changing how we do business, too, and also how we approach wealth inequality. New technology does nothing if the 99% are too poor to make use of it, and economic incentives do nothing if the 1% can buy their way around them. Anything that falls short of that overhaul will be a politically toxic and ultimately unproductive incentive to swing the pendulum back the other way and screw the libs, and the GOP knows that.

I agree with these things, in a general sense. But remember that even the GOP is capable of enacting change when the problem is immediate. The trick is making them understand that it is immediate. That kneejerk reaction against any kind of change is their greatest flaw, but remember H.W Bush? We have to take these opportunities if we really are serious about fighting climate change. If a Republican Senator is going to come out and say that climate change is real and we have to fight it, then we should take that as a sign that it's possible.

I think we've spent the last couple of decades so frustrated with their utter apathy towards the subject that we're running the risk of supporting the Democratic party over supporting a fight against climate change. I'm not saying vote GOP, but if they come out and want some alterations to the Green Deal that allow for greater action against climate change, we should at least avoid discarding it out of hand.

[wierd]

The issue is that they are proven to be conniving, and two-faced.

If they propose an amendment, you will need to go over it very closely with a fine toothed comb. (because odds are likely that they are planting a land-mine, that they can then point to later for political advantage, while still being just as jaundiced as ever about the actual problem.)

[Dunamisdeos]

I 100% agree with this, and fault noone for being suspicious and distrustful of their motives.

But they can be genuine, and they'd have to be if we're going to fight climate change, so it's important not to miss an opportunity if it arises.

[wierd]

Again, that would require them going against their REAL constituency-- Wealthy donors, and monied interests that have a very strongly vested interest in not acknowledging climate change as real.

They might personally acknowledge such, but as soon as they actually make real, genuine efforts to combat it, they are going against their donors, and their re-election funds vanish overnight.  It's political suicide with who they have thrown in with.

[Dunamisdeos]

It's probably true that they didn't have any money in ozone-destroying chemicals at the time, hence the ease with which they came around to the idea of banning them.

I don't think the current era of political hatred is going to continue forever, and i think down the road we will be able to come to some kind of therms over climate change. At the very least current generations are learning facts about the subject, not theories. I still advocate taking opportunities when they arise, but yes, the GOP are certainly shifty and fickle and driven by profit.

[Trekkin]

I'm not saying vote GOP, but if they come out and want some alterations to the Green Deal that allow for greater action against climate change, we should at least avoid discarding it out of hand.

If that were what they said, I'd be on board with it, but it was not; recall that the Senator said he was treating the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves before starting with the dinosaurs and the mockery. This wasn't a disagreement over policy. It was mugging for the Fox News cameras. There's no way to negotiate with that, so I say we stop wasting our time trying until they put down the cartoons and start acting in ways that are compatible with the basic functioning of our democracy.