Ah yes, my brethren.
FishLake
joined 2 years ago
It was kind of a shitpost comment.
And no offense taken about the fed comment lol. I mean, I am a self-identifying anarchist on Lemmygrad. Comes with the territory. But I’m every ML’s favorite kind of anarchist, completely reasonable.
Cool. I’ll just do the math then. I’m sure it’s just as easy as all those people on Facebook say doing your own research is. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, but fuzzy napkin math without sources or stats or some kind of methodology does not make a strong claim. Without that kind of specificity or rigor, we’re just two assholes on the internet misinterpreting each others’ words.
Anyway, totally agree with that second paragraph. And I’m certain there’s a ton of sources to back you up on being at 1990s CO2 levels. I wouldn’t personally consider a few more decades of wiggle room to be a non-issue, that’s just me. Though, looking outside my widow at the hellscape of 100% humidity and melting assault I sure wish we had invested more in nuclear energy.
I’m curious how mass nuclear energy adoption in the 90s would have offset the impact of agriculture, livestock, and the oil and gas industry. I don’t see how nuclear energy would have made climate change a non-issue.
I’d still categorize burning police stations as harm reduction.
That’s kind of the point. The “high openness” people as mentioned in the article might not think it’s the best art, but concede that someone created it. Ergo it’s art whether you like it or not. The high openness attribute here correlates strongly with left-leaning people.
While low openness people, who are more often than not right-leaning, will categorically not classify it as art.
To right-leaning people there is a binary of “art” and “not art.” Left-leaning people tend to believe art exists on a spectrum.
Take of that what you will, but I think questions like this really just exposes how empathetic people are and what political parties they’re likely to support.
Good take. I’ve seen so many liberals express apathy towards this ruling, or say that the SC should bar legacy admissions, or that ending AA is tantamount to ending racism. All of which, to me, miss the point entirely. This case really shows that the US believes education ought to be a walled garden. One where you have to prove your worth to the owning class in order to enter. This ruling closes a very small door on the three foot thick wall surrounding the garden of education. Liberals would like to believe they can make a truly equitable system of admissions that can somehow undo the injustices faced by minorities, but there cannot be a purely meritocratic system of education while there is capital-based access to it, nor should there be. Such a system cannot allow for this access because education is too liberatory.
Long live Tort
Neat! Thanks for the link.