mozz

Pretending not to know what I am saying! Good strategy. You can Google “tan suit” if you actually do need help with it.

Here’s a high level summary of the plan. Stuff like:

To reach net-zero emissions as rapidly as possible, Democrats commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 through technology-neutral standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. We will dramatically expand solar and wind energy deployment through community-based and utility-scale systems, including in rural areas. Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 wind turbines

And so on

The implementation of the last plan was to spend about a trillion dollars of corporate-tax-increase money on climate change, resulting in about half a billion tons of CO2e per year reduction by the year 2030. Here’s an overview.

Good to see the tan suit bullshit things-to-get-upset-about machine is updated for the modern era and dialed in to its specific audience

We’re not friends

Stop posting bullshit pls

And no I do not work for the Democrats or any PAC or political organization

So every so often, I have seen a story from inthesetimes.com and sort of surmised that it's propaganda bullshit based purely on the URL, but I never really knew. This article seems like a good time to dive into it a little bit. TL;DR yes, it's bullshit. It's actually extremely cunning in how it assembles some true facts into a shape that doesn't exist.

While the Act made unprecedented investments in renewable energy, it also faced criticism for being too little, too late and for compromising on fossil fuel extraction.

This part is 100% accurate. IDK why the headline focuses on Biden, instead of on every president before him and on Manchin for their role in causing it to be too late and too little respectively, when it's making this accurate point, but let's continue.

What if, on the contrary, all the tools only make a dire crisis even worse? Because that’s exactly what’s happening: Two years and close to $300 billion later, what we’re seeing is that increased renewable energy investment goes hand in hand with increased fossil fuel production.

Okay so this is where we dive into the real dishonesty.

Two things I want you to notice:

• The word "global" just kind of inconspicuously there
• The scale on these charts is laughably different. I sort of got lost in the math, so I don't know exactly how different, but I know that holding up a chart of "our emissions are going up and up as our energy is going up" alongside a chart of "the laughably small scale of that that comes from renewable energy is going up and up" and then implying that there's a causal relationship there is a bunch of bullshit.

So... without the word "global," trying to analyze only the US's contribution, what does it look like? Something like this:

OH LOOK IT'S FUCKIN GOING DOWN. It's now below the 1990 levels, after a big drop this past year.

Why is this person going to so much trouble to lie about what's happened to "emissions" by holding up US policy, next to global emissions? And holding up other charts next to each other and pretending that they relate to each other? And identifying (correctly) that all of this is too little too late, as a way of levying specific criticism at the most effective thing we've been doing, in service of depressing support for more solutions like that and consequently making it more like that we'll go back to the days when the line actually is going up and up?

As HST says, to ask the question is to answer the question.

I think he's foolish enough to get on board with a presidential campaign which is purely designed to benefit conservative candidates.

Several people on Lemmy have told me they respect his view or his insight on American society or etc. I've listened to a couple of his speeches (including ones that were specifically recommended to me), couldn't really arrive at anything that was being argued within them other than an occasional vague nod to the idea that imperialism and corporate oppression are bad, came back and asked okay what specific things do you like about what he says? No one yet has even attempted to answer that question.

He's a pure spoiler candidate, and one of his top two campaign priorities I ran across trying to get a handle on him was to stop aid to Ukraine. He's bullshit.

So every so often, I have seen a story from inthesetimes.com and sort of surmised that it's propaganda bullshit based purely on the URL, but I never really knew. This article seems like a good time to dive into it a little bit. TL;DR yes, it's bullshit. It's actually extremely cunning in how it assembles some true facts into a shape that doesn't exist.

While the Act made unprecedented investments in renewable energy, it also faced criticism for being too little, too late and for compromising on fossil fuel extraction.

This part is 100% accurate. IDK why the headline focuses on Biden, instead of on every president before him and on Manchin for their role in causing it to be too late and too little respectively, when it's making this accurate point, but let's continue.

What if, on the contrary, all the tools only make a dire crisis even worse? Because that’s exactly what’s happening: Two years and close to $300 billion later, what we’re seeing is that increased renewable energy investment goes hand in hand with increased fossil fuel production.

Okay so this is where we dive into the real dishonesty.

Two things I want you to notice:

• The word "global" just kind of inconspicuously there
• The scale on these charts is laughably different. I sort of got lost in the math, so I don't know exactly how different, but I know that holding up a chart of "our emissions are going up and up as our energy is going up" alongside a chart of "the laughably small scale of that that comes from renewable energy is going up and up" and then implying that there's a causal relationship there is a bunch of bullshit.

So... without the word "global," trying to analyze only the US's contribution, what does it look like? Something like this:

OH LOOK IT'S FUCKIN GOING DOWN. It's now below the 1990 levels, after a big drop this past year.

Why is this person going to so much trouble to lie about what's happened to "emissions" by holding up US policy, next to global emissions? And holding up other charts next to each other and pretending that they relate to each other? And identifying (correctly) that all of this is too little too late, as a way of levying specific criticism at the most effective thing we've been doing, in service of depressing support for more solutions like that and consequently making it more like that we'll go back to the days when the line actually is going up and up?

As HST says, to ask the question is to answer the question.

aspoilerfakeleftistsayswhat

ITT are a bunch of bad explanations; some are ok but here's more detail:

Imagine a transparent sheet of glass with words printed on it. Hold it up so you can read it. Now stand in front of a mirror. You can read the words, both in the mirror and on the glass in front of you. Neither set of words is flipped.

Now imagine turning the glass around so the words face the mirror. As you rotate the glass 180 degrees horizontally, it flips around mirror image. Both in the glass in front of you, and in the mirror, you can now see a "mirror image" view of the text. But the mirror didn't do anything -- you did, when you chose to flip the glass around horizontally instead of vertically to face the mirror. If you'd tumbled it top over bottom to face the mirror, then the text wouldn't have flipped left and right, but it would have flipped high and low.

Your head is similar to the text, except you can't see through it. But, if you rotated yourself to face away from the mirror, and your head was transparent, someone looking at you would see a not-mirror-image face of yours, both looking at them and in the mirror from the other side. Same as the text. Nothing is flipped. When you chose to spin yourself horizontally to face the mirror, instead of doing a headstand, you chose the transformation that will led to seeing the mirror image instead of the high-and-low flipped image of your face. If you face away from the mirror, and do a handstand instead of spinning horizontally, you'll see a vertically flipped face with its left and right preserved.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Wait, no no - I think I was thinking of NeverDead, not Painkiller.

I honestly cannot remember whether it was me or the other lefty guy that was comparing the US army to the Nazis. But yes, one of us was.

Super fuckin dystopian

You never played as the “bad guys”. You and your team on your screen were always American, 100% of the time. The terrorists you were fighting saw a presentation on their own screen that you were the godless terrorists, and they were the heroic Americans. No one was ever the bad guys. Except, some “other” in some distant place. But not you.

We had heated arguments at one place I worked when AA wanted to hire us for some short contract. The one side of the argument was, guys, they literally just want us to set up and configure one web service for them. I don’t think we’re gonna wind up killing anyone from the global south in the course of setting up that server. The other side, which I remember verbatim, came in the form of a heated retort:

“Would you set up a blah blah blah server for the NAZIS?”