Zelda Wiki
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: From British Invasion to British Implosion
    • The CIA recently concluded that MbS ordered the assassination. While Saudi officials lied over and over about it, changing their story every week: but 'MbS had nothing to do with it'.
      Killing, lying, censoring; that's how they operate, and it's not MbS's first crime.

      But Trump dismissing any wrongdoing is a disgrace, and makes the US look really bad in this whole fiasco.
    • John wrote:

      California has a major housing crisis. I mean, the more you get outside of the cities the less of an issue it is, but the cities desperately need more housing, which means they have to expand into new land, generally, which means they're closer into areas where fires used to happen without issue but now are a problem 'cause people are around.

      So you can either make fires more dangerous or leave people unable to actually live anywhere.
      this is the major issue with housing discussions, you need to build up not out. Apartments not houses and backyards.
    • Sure, but that would involve tearing down housing that's already there, on land that's incredibly expensive, and even if you do that you still need to build out because even converting a lot of housing to high density wouldn't be enough.

      Plus, the governments generally can't seize private housing, tear it down, and mandate high density be built there instead, so they're still in a no-win situation.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • Lucretia wrote:

      lack of imagination John. You know it's the right thing but find bureacratic and surmountable reasons to say no

      I'm not saying higher-density housing can't happen, I'm saying that bulldozing existing housing to build higher-density isn't something governments can really do when land is that expensive. My comment was always in the context of "this was kinda a no-win situation for the governments involved".

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • hillary clinton has enter the news cycle again and as always she never fails to prepare herself a totally avoidable shit sandwich

      1) article in the guardian detailing how we need to stop immigration in order to fight the rise of nazis, as if its migrants faults that nazis exist, thanks happy thanksgiving to you too

      2) in interviews alongside other losers renzi and blair talking about why they lost and how we can really win this time if we just keep pursuing neoliberalism doggedly

      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Hazel wrote:

      we're never going to be rid of this fucking family are we

      For a country that was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and meritocracy and republicanism and all that junk, it's always bemused me how dynastic politics are in this country
      PM me for the clan test!

      Avatar & sig by the amazing Liah!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Silver ().

    • Avalanchemike wrote:

      hillary clinton has enter the news cycle again and as always she never fails to prepare herself a totally avoidable shit sandwich

      1) article in the guardian detailing how we need to stop immigration in order to fight the rise of nazis, as if its migrants faults that nazis exist, thanks happy thanksgiving to you too

      2) in interviews alongside other losers renzi and blair talking about why they lost and how we can really win this time if we just keep pursuing neoliberalism doggedly
      wow you aren’t kidding:

      “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”


      I feel like I’m in the 20th century again.

      It's fascinating how a conservative who styles himself as "highly educated" and someone who "loathes Trump and the anti-intellectualism that has overtaken the Republican party" can still be so laughably wrong on a matter like climate change. Because of course, after noting that he is "extremely open" to the idea that the climate is changing and that humans may have had a hand to play in that, this guy proceeds to go through the Greatest Hits of Conservative Bullshit on Climate Change:

      "The name was changed from global warming to climate change!" No it wasn't, 'climate change' as a scientific term has been in use since the late 1800s.

      "The climate has always been changing!" Yes, and scientists understand perfectly well why it's always been changing. So when they publish paper after paper explaining in exquisite detail exactly how humans have contributed to the recent warming through emissions of CO2, you'd do well to listen.

      "The data is deceiving cuz there's no way we'd know any of this stuff already!" It's the height of arrogance to be telling a bunch of climatologists that they don't know how to do their jobs. Let's be clear; this guy ain't a scientist, and he sure as shit ain't a climatologist, so how he presumes to know more than the people who DO work on this, I'm sure I don't know.

      "The recent wildfires in California had nothing to do with climate change in my view!" But who cares about the view of some conservative writer on a website when it comes to climate change? Of course conservatives aren't being persuaded by the science when they seem to be of the boneheaded belief that their unsubstantiated view holds any sort of weight in scientific discourse.

      You gotta read this next part straight from the source cuz it's a right doozy:

      A large part of why the “shut up and go along” tactic fails so spectacularly here with conservatives is that those making that case have obvious conflicts of interest. Climatology is FAR sexier and more lucrative for everyone involved if it is the source of a global doomsday scenario. The entire “industry” is now so invested in this prediction being true that it is perceived as career suicide for any established person to dare to buck prevailing wisdom. When you add to this the fact that, surely by pure coincidence, the solution to this massive and imminent problem sounds like an excuse for implementing global socialism, and it’s no mystery why conservatives won’t blindly go along.

      Did you catch that? It's the climatologists that have a conflict of interest, because climatology is so "sexy" and "lucrative". Nevermind that it's a hell of a hypocritical point to be making when conservatives have been the ones advocating for special interests that have been lining their pockets to speak up against climate change, and doing their damnedest to create the appearance that there's a big, unsettled issue regarding the science when there quite plainly isn't.

      It's also a complete misunderstanding of how science works, too. Going against "prevailing wisdom" is by far the best and most effective way to gain attention and notoriety in the field of science, because if you can demonstrate that established science is wrong, you are then going to be the one who paves the way for a new understanding and will be the one who everyone else has to follow. There is nothing to suggest that scientific papers have been suppressed or swept under the rug because they went against the grain, and to suggest as much is nothing short of flagrant conspiracy theorizing.

      "Scientists are really bad at predicting future warming!" This isn't something you can just toss out in an opinion piece and then expect people to swallow wholesale. For someone who's trying to convince "liberals" that they're not convincing enough, the writer sure seems to be unwilling to actually demonstrate his criticisms and accusations in any meaningful way, which ironically means that his own argument fails to convince.

      Another direct quote, because it's just too stupid for paraphrasing:

      As a golfer, if The Masters tournament, held in Georgia the second week of each April because that is the prime of spring, is forced to move to March because of the warmer temperatures, then I will be an instant believer. However, until then I need something more than just biased reports on the seemingly ever-changing state of the polar icecaps

      Because if I can't see it happening first-hand, that means it ain't happened. This guy claimed to be "highly educated", people.

      I feel like the writer opened with "I'm a conservative, convince me that climate change is real" and then proceeded to demonstrate all the reasons why it's futile to try to convince him that climate change is real. If you're convinced that scientists are biased and just chasing a "sexy" and "lucrative" hypothesis to stay "relevant" then what the fuck can I even do to start to convince you otherwise?
    • There's also the fact that he's pointedly ignoring which is that educated conservatives understand that climate change on the scale of what we're heading toward is real and they just don't care because:

      1. They'll be dead before we start to see the real effects

      2. In the short term there's no money to be made in investing in technology and practices that won't boil us alive in 50 years

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Hazel ().

    • @Abyss Master

      Very well written

      As a progressive, I personal believe climate change is a great threat but the only talking point from climate deniers that i struggle with is the following:

      How do we know the scientists aren’t paid off? Isn’t it in their best interest to say climate change is affected by man so continue to receive funding?

      How would you respond to that? I usually point out how scientists from different countries are in agreement meaning that the change of conspiracy is zero .
    • The point about climate scientists being biased is a really strange one, since he admits his own bias in the paper: the reason he's so skeptical of climate change is because its truth would seem to necessitate implementing "global socialism," his term for commonly discussed solutions like a carbon tax or stronger regulations. In other words, like most conservatives and libertarians, recognizing the truth of climate change would be an inconvenience for his political beliefs, and he therefore has an ideological incentive to deny it.

      The typical response would be that liberals likewise have an ideological incentive to believe it, because they support "big government" as expressed in regulations and taxes, which the existence of climate change would facilitate. I don't think that's an equivalent comparison, since the supposed liberal reason to believe in climate change is a lot more questionable and nebulous: liberals don't support "big government" for its own sake, but as a means to an end, so it wouldn't make much sense to invent a nonexistent problem simply to increase the scope of government without a real end in mind.

      But let's imagine there's an equivalence: conservatives deny climate change because of their own bias, and liberals believe it because of their own bias. The reason this still isn't a wash between two equal sides is because there's one group that's gone entirely unconsulted in this analysis: climate scientists, who fall outside the partisan political spectrum, who have been studying this long before it became a political issue, and who overwhelmingly support the existence of man-made climate change.

      Once this is recognized (and many, unbelievably, try to deny it) there's really no choice but to resort to the absurd, which is accusing climate science as a whole, without any evidence, of being biased and corrupted to the point that the entire discipline would be compromised and illegitimate, unique among the sciences, which they otherwise generally accept. At which point it's probably worth asking why the only science that they don't accept is the one that conflicts with their ideology.

      The reasons given for the supposed bias are, of course, equally ridiculous: the idea that all scientists rely on government funding, the idea that only government-funded scientists accept climate change, the idea that government would even universally prefer that scientists support rather than oppose climate change, the idea that governments attach ideological conditions when giving grants, the idea that scientists globally are in a conspiracy to promote and protect this idea, etc. These are self-evidently absurd and don't warrant refutation.

      Anyway, my point here, if I have one, is that accusations of bias from opponents of climate change in general and people such as the article writer in particular are usually patently ridiculous and remarkably lacking in self-awareness.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Leslie73 ().

    • Lucretia wrote:

      you know scientists aren't paid off because you run their experiments again and confirm the data, in other words: you do science

      Furthermore, the burden is not on you to prove that scientists are not paid off by any sort of special interests. Rather it's the person making the claim who has to back that statement up.

      Now, it's unlikely that they'll be persuaded by the (perfectly sensible) argument that science is proven through the scientific method, i.e. testing, observation, measurement, inference, predictions and repeated results. If they are already of the belief that scientists are paid off in some sort of grand conspiracy, they're only one step away from also believing that the institutions surrounding the scientists are also corrupt, and so it doesn't matter that climate science is proven through evidence because they believe the evidence is just manipulated anyway.

      While I find it very frustrating to see these garbage arguments perpetuated again and again on the internet, I do take solace in a couple of simple facts; first, science isn't a debate. The veracity of a scientific theory is not determined by who is persuaded by any one argument, but by the evidence. It simply doesn't matter whether conservatives are persuaded by liberals or not; the evidence speaks for itself. All the conservatives will have to show for it, at the end of the day, is how ignorant they are - regardless of how much they blast liberals for not convincing them. Which is a bit like chastising someone for not adequately convincing you that shooting yourself in the foot is a bad idea.

      Second, science advances regardless of how many numbskulls get in the way. We understand more about the climate today than we ever did in the past, and we will come to understand even more as time passes. We're not seeing a rise in the number of scientific papers questioning established climate science - we're seeing it dwindle away, slowly but surely, as more data is meticulously gathered every year and always pointing to the same conclusion. Anyone expecting to be taken seriously on the topic of climate change is now all but expected to at least accept the fact that the earth is warming - even the dunderhead who wrote that opinion piece had to admit as much, though you could tell it was a bitter pill to swallow.

      Where such ignorance and partisanship gets worrisome is when it's in control of oversight. The House Committe on Science, Space and Technology is currently headed by scientifically illiterate Republicans, who among other things didn't even know how displacement works with regards to land ice melting into the sea and thus raising the sea level. They are going to be replaced by people who at the very least listen to the scientists, so there's that.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Abyss Master ().