spiffmeister

joined 2 years ago
[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

The conservatives have been getting worse over the past say, 10 years, Trump kind of accelerated things and that style of "who cares what the truth is" was exported from the US.

The right wing in general was always going to end up being like this though.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Cost is often factored in when it comes to optimising fusion power plant design so potentially, plus other benefits of fusion. Either way, barring a breakthrough the closest power barring breakthroughs is probably at best 2040 imo. Even with all the new startups.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 4 points 2 years ago

I think of it less as a question and more of an admission

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They could have avoided a chunk of this by passing Zali stegalls bill on truth in advertising, but I guess abandoning your cornerstone policy on reconciliation is a small price to pay for being able to lie at the next election.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Global warming is a hoax, the real threat is global eucalypting

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

I guess the greens decided they couldn't get anything more out of Labor.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago

Yes but a contained nightmare.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

The article doesn't refer to violent offenders? Is this in the actual report from the truth telling commission?

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What's your point here? The article you linked relates to a murder in Qld and seems to have nothing to do with the report from truth telling commission.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

They didn't give any more examples than a politician saying they've spoken to people in the community.

  1. If you don't trust anyone on here why bother? It isn't difficult to discern a bad faith argument.

As far as I'm concerned anyone making this sort of argument should be ignored because it's the easiest form of bad faith argument.

  1. You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn't perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.

This is true, and you can make an argument against the polling, but that's an argument that can actually be had. You can't argue with random anecdotes. I don't understand how you can simultaneously point out legit issues with polls but also accept unverifiable anecdotes.

Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.

I agree it's a risk. There's a lot of really easy things the country could be doing to help indigenous Australians and this may not help while just being a massive distraction.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Polls are only so accurate and can be subject to a range of issues as well sure. The difference is the sample size is much larger, and you can generally find a polling organisations methodology so you can probably see how they collected results broadly, if you have an issue with the methodology you should argue with that.

Cool, so why should anyone listen to anything you say?

You shouldn't if I make claims that I know people and they say X.

view more: ‹ prev next ›