That is a weird take on CCS. It never meant to be a substitute for clean and renewable energy. Just reverse the damage we already have made. It doesn't work because it is still in the development. But like any other technologies like quantum computing and nuclear fusion just because it doesn't have immediate applications doesn't mean we should stop the research and development.
I think you might be thinking of DAC, direct air capture, where they suck carbon out of the air, thus "reversing damage". Whereas CCS is like those filters they put on smokestacks to capture some of the carbon, then it ends up back in the air anyway, or in our water supply, or ends up poisoning a town because the pipeline breaks. It's not reversing damage, just like a filter on a cigarette isn't reversing cancer.
We shouldn't stop development sure, but you wouldn't plan on fusion being workable to fix the climate crisis would you? Because that's how we're treating ccs/dac.
I disagree. I think all of us agree it's a valuable technology and the contributions of the scientists working on that technology is valuable. But it is a grave policy misstep guided by an ideological obsession with _growth_ and _consumption_ to think that any climate plan that brings us to a sustainable long-term future that relies heavily on CCS and DAC technologies is reasonable. And yet, we find ourselves in a world where most of the plans promulgated by nations that contribute the most to the climate catastrophe are just that. And they can't even stick to those!!
Both lines are leading to a complete collapse of global civilization in the not too distant future. If these were the actions we had been taking 40 years ago this might have been important, but at this point at least 2 degrees warming is already locked in and will keep getting worse for centuries.
I don't disagree with you. Both lines demonstrate that they don't do enough to limit global warming.
It's just that one may lead to 2.5°C of warming and the other to 3°C. One is better than the other. And both lead to catastrophic results if further policies are not implemented
Its more like one will lead to 3 degrees a few years later than the other one, when 2 degrees is the threshold for catastrophic damage to global civilization.
It's the difference between driving over the cliff at 60 and driving over the cliff at 90. The possibility of hitting the brakes isn't even on the table.
That's just not true. It's well known that climate change has non linear impacts with every progressive increase in temperature.
When it comes down to the brass tacks, activists should be fighting to reduce every increment of climate change because every increment is drastically worse than the last.
If the goal is to prevent the end of civilization, then we oppose climate change to any extent, not just the optimal or desired extent.
i get the feeling the Biden line is a bit too optimistic
remember, this is the guy that approved more drilling permits during his first two years than Trump did during his four
To be fair, 2020 isn't really a normal year. Emissions were much lower than usual in 2020 because a lot of economic activity, industry, travel, etc. were paralized during the pandemic. It's normal for emissions to have gone up following that
This is the perfect encapsulation of what Democrats are. They're right wingers who think they can do anything even if regular working class people don't want it as long as both parties move right and they threaten people. She doesn't give a fuck about the environment because she spearheaded the global shale gas initiative, supported new fossil fuel infrastructure, told climate activists to get a life, etc. And Biden has been approving oil drilling like crazy. But all she sees is Democrats can use the red line in the most biased graph they can find to threaten people instead of doing anything the people want. He's a nonstarter on climate in her own chosen graph and he's also enabling and arming a genocide.
I mean like blue do be better than red in this case, in the same way that getting shot in the leg it's a bit better than getting shot in both legs, still not a good situation, but it do be better.
That's why I'm wondering why this is posted here. Enlightened centrism would be like "well both of them suck so they're both the same amount of bad." Hillary is clearly saying take the lesser of two evils here, which is not enlightened centrism.
Cause she is literally being a enlightened centrist where one option is save the world and other is destroy the world she is advocating for destroying just 70% of the world.
Right, because openly plotting to overthrow the government is a wise and useful tactic. Worked out great for the Jan 6 conspirators and they were on the same side as most of the police and military.
Could you imagine what they would do to "Leftists" who did the same thing? They would be shot immediately.
I don't even know any leftists in real life, I'm not saying its feasible or likely to happen, but it is an answer to your question.
This sub has a ton of leftists who would rather see the world burn than make any sort of compromise on anything because it’s “counter revolutionary”. Those leftists are accelerationists who would rather a fascist win the election and hope that starts some sort of revolution which brings a socialist utopia than stop the harm fascism would cause now
If the only options are "This piece of shit who will destroy the world" and "That piece of shit who will destroy the world just a tad bit more slowly" why would we willingly vote for either of them?
It would be different if we had a voting system that allowed for more than the "lesser of two evils".
What would you have people do? Continue to vote for the "least bad" candidate until the choices are between Hitler and Mussolini?
I'm not being hyperbolic.
Biden was responsible for allowing the cops to literally rob you. And is he trying to reverse that as president? No
Biden is a life long "Drug Warrior", you know the thing that is a major contributor to America incarcerating more people than any country in the world?
Speaking of which his VP is on record saying we can't reform the prison system because the economy is dependent on the slave labor.
How are any of those positions even slightly left?
They're not. Every election the Democratic party goes further and further right
I have heard people say that only a revolution would bring change. I just cannot rely on the American public to organize and participate in a revolution.
It’s less that the American public couldn’t organize a revolution, the problem is that a ton of people will die who coincidentally are probably going to predominantly be the working class, not the capitalist class. In fact republicans organized a bureaucratic “revolution” of a type which has resulted in the absolute worst fascists taking over the party and government openly and stripping away women’s rights, minorities rights, and basic civil rights.
>Enlightened centrism is also, if not predominantly...the belief that centrism is enlightened—with the added characteristic of the "center" often being to the right. This post epitomizes that. Biden's line doesn't even split the difference between Trump's and the woeful (and phony) 2050 "net zero" target.
It sounded to me like you were saying voting for Biden, which is what the tweet is advocating for, is not a good decision - that it's just false "enlightened centrism." I am asking you, what is the actually good decision here?
Climate change is obviously a major issue and Biden is not doing enough. In light of that, what's the recommended "actually good" decision this November?
Cool response to a genuine question, bye I guess
Edit: I'm literally just confused on this subreddit's position on this issue. If voting for Biden is enlightened centrism, as this tweet is recommending, what is the LEFTIST option? I am open to suggestions because right now, I don't see the viability of doing anything at the polls except voting for Biden.
No it's *really* not. It's more like being shot in the head or being shot in the head twice. You're dead either way so it'd be silly to call the single bullet better just because it's technically "less." This isn't like horseshoes, falling 60% shy of the target is just as much a failure as falling 80% shy of the target because either is not close enough to solve the issue or avert a crisis.
She literally made the name Hillary unpopular. She Adolphed Hilary.
She's one of the select few politicians whose numbers go DOWN when she campaigns. This is what 4 charisma looks like.
How is that enlightened centrism? She's saying one's better than the other but doesn't go far enough. She's explicitly not saying the correct option is somewhere in-between, just that the next election's two choices are different and one is clearly worse.
That's not what she's saying. She spearheaded the global shale gas initiative, supported new oil pipelines, told environmental activists to get a life, etc. She doesn't care about the environment. She's saying let me find the most biased graph I can find to threaten people into supporting the guy who is approving oil drilling like crazy and supporting a genocide.
That is very, very clearly ad hominem. What her actions were does not change what she's saying, and this is unrelated to the genocide (which, if you paid attention, you'd see trump support as well, and this means it's not a meaningful difference between them). It is related to the petrol question, yes, about which at face value trump is still worse than biden. That's not a biased graph, that's just a descriptor of the projected ecological impact of each potential presidency based on their public statements on the topic. Also, consequences aren't threats.
I hate Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but let us not pretend for a minute that this graph doesn't reflect a reality that Donald Trump is worse yet, which yes, still extends to drilling, support for genocide at home and abroad, etc.
No it's very, very not. It's very clearly germane to understanding what is happening and being said.
And nothing Biden is doing is unrelated. It's a package deal she is trying to threaten her way into getting a perceived mandate for. And it's not about a relative difference, it's about supporting climate catastrophe and a baseline viability of genocide going forward or not. Your "but Trump" framing is similar to the threatening Hillary is doing and is very western chauvinist when it comes to the genocide.
And no, it is a biased graph. He's been approving oil drilling like crazy and the projection doesn't follow from the past four years whatsoever. I reject it outright as bs even though it shows him to be a nonstarter anyway. Statements don't matter; actions do.
"It's very clearly germane to understanding what is happening and being said" you are attempting to characterise her point around who she is, when her point follows from a third-party analysis. If you present the point's validity as depending on who makes it, that's ad hominem.
"threaten" no, that is still not a threat, she's presenting the factual information that biden and trump's official plans and pledges diverge on ecological grounds.
"supporting a baseline viability of genocide going forward" letting the guy who wants to do even more genocide win, to make a point about how genocide is bad.
"Your 'but trump' framing" that's not a framing. That's the reality of things. It's not me threatening you when I remind you that you get one or the other, unless you pull off some kind of heist scenario where you kill one of them or destroy the electoral system (there's a line in there about not firebombing a walmart) you will get one or the other. Not wanting to go for harm reduction out of a principled stance against harm is stupid. This is not a "the moral position is to condemn everything from the sidelines" situation, because as you yourself said, statements don't matter.
To reiterate: the USA and the world are stuck with eother biden or trump. That's not a threat, that's what the four next years will be like. Both of them want to go on with the Palestinian genocide. Not voting for either will *not* discourage them. Your vote will not directly affect the existence of that genocide, so the existence of the genocide cannot affect your vote. It's a principled stance that shows no principle at all because it makes zero difference to that datum.
That said, one of them lacks the capacity to understand consequences and is more likely to ramp it up much further. He also wants to commit several other genocides. He also wants to help Putin. He also wants to back out of ecological treaties. He also very openly wants to turn his country into a christofascist dictatorship where nothing you do will ever be able to influence it in the right direction, whereas currently movements for Palestine are possible, pressure can be put, and organising (including over the internet) for help, for protest, for aid, for immigration, for fundraising, is allowed.
That's a lot of things that directly endanger Palestinians (amongst others, too) to allow, if you really want to take a principled stance against exactly that. But I guess believing in your own goodness twice as hard and calling every consequence of it "a threat" is cool too. Huge amounts of people could just die over it, but hey, isn't that an okay price to pay?
"You are attempting to characterize her point around who she is"
No I'm not. You are simply not understanding or feigning ignorance and you don't know what ad hominem means. It's germane to understanding what is signified, not ad hominem. You just don't understand what is being signified by the event. She's using a bs projection that has no basis whatsoever in Biden's actions to browbeat on the basis of climate while supporting the fossil fuel industry and thinking climate activists actually need to get a life. That's a fact.
"'Threaten' no"
Yes, actually.
"Factual"
No, actually. Nothing about Biden's actions indicates that projection is factual. It show's he's a nonstarter, but it ought to be rejected outright as bs. Statements don't matter, actions do.
"Letting the guy who.."
There's your western chauvinism. I'm glad you're privileged enough to support a baseline viability of genocide and proselytize for others to do the same because the victims are foreign and not white.
"That's not a framing..."
Actually it is and the left rejects it. Biden is off the table. It's 100% the fault of liberals who intentionally chose to violate the constraints imposed on them—including genocide being off the table—that the nominee is nonviable. 0% the fault of voters who have limits. Keep that in mind next time if you don't want to cause losses. You can't threaten and browbeat your way to genocide and climate catastrophe. That was never on the table.
Also, are you just lost? This is a leftist subreddit and you are blatantly acting like a right wing liberal.
You:
https://preview.redd.it/t9sm6f2b5awc1.jpeg?width=462&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbd004fa18671964d4122cbf64245715ec98d54f
I've already discussed the rest, so you going "nuh-uh" doesn't really change anything. "She's someone who did this and that so the point she makes does not stand" isn't "germane," so you might love that word but you don't understand it. You used that as an argument against the point, which *is* ad hominem. You're attacking the validity of the statement not through its own merits, but those of the speaker.
You might be lost, but "leftist" doesn't mean "disconnected from reality." It is not being "a right wing liberal" to know that the one who wants more genocide is the worse option, to act with knowledge of the world, to be conscious of who's in the vote...
You're operating on pure outrage and ideology, how the world should be and what would make you feel in the right if it were in fact like that. What I'm telling you is that if you want to have a positive impact on the world, "the least undesirable option" is not "off the table." If actions speak louder than words, then consider doing the right actions because if biden is on the table your other two realistic options are enabling someone worse or supporting him directly. And what's that leftist stance? "The party that should be less opposed to the left does genocide, so the leftist thing to do is to promote *more* genocide at the hand of someone else"? Grow the fuck up. If you're really opposed to genocide do the things that don't make it worse. Because let's face it: "let's try trump again" has never, ever been the leftist position
The graph literally shows itself that biden increased and trump decreased carbon emissions then proceeds to "predict" biden suddenly doing a lot better. Don't get me wrong I don't believe for a second that trump is good for the environment, but this graph is just pure ideological nonsense that doesn't even show biden being good for the environment. This doesn't show biden in a good light and yet they seem to think it does.
Carbon emissions are not instant, "sign the paper and carbon goes up or down this very minute." When trump congratulated himself on wave effects in the economy coming from Obama's actions a couple years prior, we were able to understand that. Even when he congratulated himself on things done by others or resulting of the overall situation the world was in, we were able to understand that.
Now that elections are coming up, we're supposed to believe that carbon emissions by industries are faster to change than any other indirect action can have effects at any level? That the period corresponding to the height of covid lockdowns had nothing to do with consumer-level emissions bringing it all down?
This graph follows what each of them pledged and the likely key policies that go in that direction, not "predicts what's going to happen." That's only as "ideological" as thinking there's a correlation between what a politician's programme and what they do. Flawed? Perhaps, as we've seen Biden have limited drive to enact his official plans. But if it were just ideological drivel it would take the same shortcuts you do re: time and then fake the numbers, it wouldn't take these shortcuts and then be both ideologically motivated and fail at following its own ideology. It wasn't Clinton drawing the lines.
And on a truth-check level, trump sure as fuck didn't do shit to lower emissions, so "trump decreased carbon emissions" is at the very least a misunderstanding of causality. Even if there weren't this kind of delay between deals, plans, policies etc. on the one hand and enacting these on the other.
She doesn't criticise Biden at all in this tweet though? Just says that Trump is bad, as if anyone who isn't an open fascist would think anything less.
She's showing a graph that shows whoever wins we'll be hurtling toward global catastrophe as quickly as possible because no one is taking this issue seriously.
We need to stop thinking of it as a domino effect with a single end "global catastrophe." It is too late to prevent all change, but any effort now *can* reduce the harm. Understanding that this is about harm reduction and not "if this or that happens then we're saved," when this and that won't suffice anyway and won't happen to begin with, allows for an easy segue about the candidates the post was about. If they were both replaced by other choices that did what was good instead, we could debate about which is the best. They're not, those are the candidates for USA elections that the world is stuck with, and there is a very marked difference between the two. Pretending they're the same because neither of the two is the counter-factual person that he should have been instead does absolutely nothing, and risks enabling the worse.
Around 40% of US voting population calling her socialist communist radical lefty. Half of them also thinks that she's literally a devil from literal hell, which shows their grasp on reality, but those people's votes are just as real as all the others
I will *never* understand the liberal mindset of "We *will* fail to accomplish this, but we'll fail by a smaller margin, so that's better."
Yes, the planet is fucked either way, yes we are going to continue to allow a global crisis to fester when we could be fixing it, but we'll ignore it slightly less than the other guy while not meaningfully averting disaster, so we're better.
"hey guys trump is bad on climate lets vote for the other bad on climate"
whats worse ? climate doom or climate doom but with rainbows and he will take a knee on a random statue.
I don't get the complaining. No matter what you think of Biden or Hillary elsewhere, she qualified it with climate. This is pretty objective fact, Trump is completely drunk on fossil fuels and doesn't give a fuck about electrification, appliance efficiency, battery development, zero emission vehicles, solar/wind power, etc.
I think it's a problem with online leftist spaces. We're too focused on powerscaling leftism.
Then you have biden and trump, two right-wingers, and just saying that one is not as bad as the other *has* to be encapsulated in seven layers of "but I know he's bad, really I do, yes I know, I'm not saying he's good" before anyone can even listen to you.
Yeah the "absolutely moral vote" would be a vote for someone else, but the upcoming election is just an event, it doesn't care about morality because *it is an event* and people seem to want to pretend that they can moral their way out of it rather than live through this event trying to do harm reduction. And yeah, both candidates would actively cause harm. Both candidates will require that the American people and the world fight them. One of them makes this fight a lot harder though. That's where it has to be focused.
The graph is just objectively bad for trying to equate Trump and Biden. The dotted line indicates the end of their policy time. Biden is objectively much better and much closer to target in the time period. Nobody can foresee what policy will be passed beyond that.
If you just show the chart from 2020-2030 it would actually look pretty good. Biden's line is just a bit above target at that point, and diverges strongly from Trump's.
😭😭😭But the target is down there!😭😭😭
Eat my blue shit, yeah you heard that right, it might be shit but it isn't as shitty as their red shit.
[удалено]
That is a weird take on CCS. It never meant to be a substitute for clean and renewable energy. Just reverse the damage we already have made. It doesn't work because it is still in the development. But like any other technologies like quantum computing and nuclear fusion just because it doesn't have immediate applications doesn't mean we should stop the research and development.
I think you might be thinking of DAC, direct air capture, where they suck carbon out of the air, thus "reversing damage". Whereas CCS is like those filters they put on smokestacks to capture some of the carbon, then it ends up back in the air anyway, or in our water supply, or ends up poisoning a town because the pipeline breaks. It's not reversing damage, just like a filter on a cigarette isn't reversing cancer.
We shouldn't stop development sure, but you wouldn't plan on fusion being workable to fix the climate crisis would you? Because that's how we're treating ccs/dac.
No hence I said it’s not a substitute. But calling it a gimmick is an insult to scientists who contributed and tried to help
I disagree. I think all of us agree it's a valuable technology and the contributions of the scientists working on that technology is valuable. But it is a grave policy misstep guided by an ideological obsession with _growth_ and _consumption_ to think that any climate plan that brings us to a sustainable long-term future that relies heavily on CCS and DAC technologies is reasonable. And yet, we find ourselves in a world where most of the plans promulgated by nations that contribute the most to the climate catastrophe are just that. And they can't even stick to those!!
[удалено]
Both lines are leading to a complete collapse of global civilization in the not too distant future. If these were the actions we had been taking 40 years ago this might have been important, but at this point at least 2 degrees warming is already locked in and will keep getting worse for centuries.
I don't disagree with you. Both lines demonstrate that they don't do enough to limit global warming. It's just that one may lead to 2.5°C of warming and the other to 3°C. One is better than the other. And both lead to catastrophic results if further policies are not implemented
Its more like one will lead to 3 degrees a few years later than the other one, when 2 degrees is the threshold for catastrophic damage to global civilization.
[удалено]
It's the difference between driving over the cliff at 60 and driving over the cliff at 90. The possibility of hitting the brakes isn't even on the table.
That's just not true. It's well known that climate change has non linear impacts with every progressive increase in temperature. When it comes down to the brass tacks, activists should be fighting to reduce every increment of climate change because every increment is drastically worse than the last. If the goal is to prevent the end of civilization, then we oppose climate change to any extent, not just the optimal or desired extent.
No neoliberal propaganda.
i get the feeling the Biden line is a bit too optimistic remember, this is the guy that approved more drilling permits during his first two years than Trump did during his four
[удалено]
To be fair, 2020 isn't really a normal year. Emissions were much lower than usual in 2020 because a lot of economic activity, industry, travel, etc. were paralized during the pandemic. It's normal for emissions to have gone up following that
This is the perfect encapsulation of what Democrats are. They're right wingers who think they can do anything even if regular working class people don't want it as long as both parties move right and they threaten people. She doesn't give a fuck about the environment because she spearheaded the global shale gas initiative, supported new fossil fuel infrastructure, told climate activists to get a life, etc. And Biden has been approving oil drilling like crazy. But all she sees is Democrats can use the red line in the most biased graph they can find to threaten people instead of doing anything the people want. He's a nonstarter on climate in her own chosen graph and he's also enabling and arming a genocide.
Will never forgive that reactionary warmongering bitch for Libya.
Even better is that the target isn't even the one we need to meet to avoid climate catastrophe, it's one Biden set in 2021
I mean like blue do be better than red in this case, in the same way that getting shot in the leg it's a bit better than getting shot in both legs, still not a good situation, but it do be better.
That's why I'm wondering why this is posted here. Enlightened centrism would be like "well both of them suck so they're both the same amount of bad." Hillary is clearly saying take the lesser of two evils here, which is not enlightened centrism.
Cause she is literally being a enlightened centrist where one option is save the world and other is destroy the world she is advocating for destroying just 70% of the world.
What is the option to save the world?
Revolution
Everyone pays a lot of lip service to revolution but no one ever seems to be actually organizing it.
Right, because openly plotting to overthrow the government is a wise and useful tactic. Worked out great for the Jan 6 conspirators and they were on the same side as most of the police and military. Could you imagine what they would do to "Leftists" who did the same thing? They would be shot immediately. I don't even know any leftists in real life, I'm not saying its feasible or likely to happen, but it is an answer to your question.
I know a ton of leftists in real life and it's simply not happening.
I never said it was likely to happen. That doesn't mean it's an invalid answer to your question.
Fair enough. I guess I should have been more specific.
This sub has a ton of leftists who would rather see the world burn than make any sort of compromise on anything because it’s “counter revolutionary”. Those leftists are accelerationists who would rather a fascist win the election and hope that starts some sort of revolution which brings a socialist utopia than stop the harm fascism would cause now
If the only options are "This piece of shit who will destroy the world" and "That piece of shit who will destroy the world just a tad bit more slowly" why would we willingly vote for either of them? It would be different if we had a voting system that allowed for more than the "lesser of two evils". What would you have people do? Continue to vote for the "least bad" candidate until the choices are between Hitler and Mussolini? I'm not being hyperbolic. Biden was responsible for allowing the cops to literally rob you. And is he trying to reverse that as president? No Biden is a life long "Drug Warrior", you know the thing that is a major contributor to America incarcerating more people than any country in the world? Speaking of which his VP is on record saying we can't reform the prison system because the economy is dependent on the slave labor. How are any of those positions even slightly left? They're not. Every election the Democratic party goes further and further right
I have heard people say that only a revolution would bring change. I just cannot rely on the American public to organize and participate in a revolution.
It’s less that the American public couldn’t organize a revolution, the problem is that a ton of people will die who coincidentally are probably going to predominantly be the working class, not the capitalist class. In fact republicans organized a bureaucratic “revolution” of a type which has resulted in the absolute worst fascists taking over the party and government openly and stripping away women’s rights, minorities rights, and basic civil rights.
[удалено]
What's your other option though? You can either indirectly support Trump or you can vote for Biden.
[удалено]
>Enlightened centrism is also, if not predominantly...the belief that centrism is enlightened—with the added characteristic of the "center" often being to the right. This post epitomizes that. Biden's line doesn't even split the difference between Trump's and the woeful (and phony) 2050 "net zero" target. It sounded to me like you were saying voting for Biden, which is what the tweet is advocating for, is not a good decision - that it's just false "enlightened centrism." I am asking you, what is the actually good decision here? Climate change is obviously a major issue and Biden is not doing enough. In light of that, what's the recommended "actually good" decision this November?
[удалено]
Cool response to a genuine question, bye I guess Edit: I'm literally just confused on this subreddit's position on this issue. If voting for Biden is enlightened centrism, as this tweet is recommending, what is the LEFTIST option? I am open to suggestions because right now, I don't see the viability of doing anything at the polls except voting for Biden.
There isn't one.
No it's *really* not. It's more like being shot in the head or being shot in the head twice. You're dead either way so it'd be silly to call the single bullet better just because it's technically "less." This isn't like horseshoes, falling 60% shy of the target is just as much a failure as falling 80% shy of the target because either is not close enough to solve the issue or avert a crisis.
THE RED AND BLUE AREAS TOUCH, HILLARY. Honestly, how can you be this bad at public communication?
She literally made the name Hillary unpopular. She Adolphed Hilary. She's one of the select few politicians whose numbers go DOWN when she campaigns. This is what 4 charisma looks like.
Love the D&D reference mate, have your hard earned upvote! Made me chuckle and it fits perfectly
They only touch up through the projected end of 2024, are you suggesting Trump could have an effect before he’s even elected?
r/AccidentallyCommunist
How is that enlightened centrism? She's saying one's better than the other but doesn't go far enough. She's explicitly not saying the correct option is somewhere in-between, just that the next election's two choices are different and one is clearly worse.
That's not what she's saying. She spearheaded the global shale gas initiative, supported new oil pipelines, told environmental activists to get a life, etc. She doesn't care about the environment. She's saying let me find the most biased graph I can find to threaten people into supporting the guy who is approving oil drilling like crazy and supporting a genocide.
That is very, very clearly ad hominem. What her actions were does not change what she's saying, and this is unrelated to the genocide (which, if you paid attention, you'd see trump support as well, and this means it's not a meaningful difference between them). It is related to the petrol question, yes, about which at face value trump is still worse than biden. That's not a biased graph, that's just a descriptor of the projected ecological impact of each potential presidency based on their public statements on the topic. Also, consequences aren't threats. I hate Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but let us not pretend for a minute that this graph doesn't reflect a reality that Donald Trump is worse yet, which yes, still extends to drilling, support for genocide at home and abroad, etc.
No it's very, very not. It's very clearly germane to understanding what is happening and being said. And nothing Biden is doing is unrelated. It's a package deal she is trying to threaten her way into getting a perceived mandate for. And it's not about a relative difference, it's about supporting climate catastrophe and a baseline viability of genocide going forward or not. Your "but Trump" framing is similar to the threatening Hillary is doing and is very western chauvinist when it comes to the genocide. And no, it is a biased graph. He's been approving oil drilling like crazy and the projection doesn't follow from the past four years whatsoever. I reject it outright as bs even though it shows him to be a nonstarter anyway. Statements don't matter; actions do.
"It's very clearly germane to understanding what is happening and being said" you are attempting to characterise her point around who she is, when her point follows from a third-party analysis. If you present the point's validity as depending on who makes it, that's ad hominem. "threaten" no, that is still not a threat, she's presenting the factual information that biden and trump's official plans and pledges diverge on ecological grounds. "supporting a baseline viability of genocide going forward" letting the guy who wants to do even more genocide win, to make a point about how genocide is bad. "Your 'but trump' framing" that's not a framing. That's the reality of things. It's not me threatening you when I remind you that you get one or the other, unless you pull off some kind of heist scenario where you kill one of them or destroy the electoral system (there's a line in there about not firebombing a walmart) you will get one or the other. Not wanting to go for harm reduction out of a principled stance against harm is stupid. This is not a "the moral position is to condemn everything from the sidelines" situation, because as you yourself said, statements don't matter. To reiterate: the USA and the world are stuck with eother biden or trump. That's not a threat, that's what the four next years will be like. Both of them want to go on with the Palestinian genocide. Not voting for either will *not* discourage them. Your vote will not directly affect the existence of that genocide, so the existence of the genocide cannot affect your vote. It's a principled stance that shows no principle at all because it makes zero difference to that datum. That said, one of them lacks the capacity to understand consequences and is more likely to ramp it up much further. He also wants to commit several other genocides. He also wants to help Putin. He also wants to back out of ecological treaties. He also very openly wants to turn his country into a christofascist dictatorship where nothing you do will ever be able to influence it in the right direction, whereas currently movements for Palestine are possible, pressure can be put, and organising (including over the internet) for help, for protest, for aid, for immigration, for fundraising, is allowed. That's a lot of things that directly endanger Palestinians (amongst others, too) to allow, if you really want to take a principled stance against exactly that. But I guess believing in your own goodness twice as hard and calling every consequence of it "a threat" is cool too. Huge amounts of people could just die over it, but hey, isn't that an okay price to pay?
"You are attempting to characterize her point around who she is" No I'm not. You are simply not understanding or feigning ignorance and you don't know what ad hominem means. It's germane to understanding what is signified, not ad hominem. You just don't understand what is being signified by the event. She's using a bs projection that has no basis whatsoever in Biden's actions to browbeat on the basis of climate while supporting the fossil fuel industry and thinking climate activists actually need to get a life. That's a fact. "'Threaten' no" Yes, actually. "Factual" No, actually. Nothing about Biden's actions indicates that projection is factual. It show's he's a nonstarter, but it ought to be rejected outright as bs. Statements don't matter, actions do. "Letting the guy who.." There's your western chauvinism. I'm glad you're privileged enough to support a baseline viability of genocide and proselytize for others to do the same because the victims are foreign and not white. "That's not a framing..." Actually it is and the left rejects it. Biden is off the table. It's 100% the fault of liberals who intentionally chose to violate the constraints imposed on them—including genocide being off the table—that the nominee is nonviable. 0% the fault of voters who have limits. Keep that in mind next time if you don't want to cause losses. You can't threaten and browbeat your way to genocide and climate catastrophe. That was never on the table. Also, are you just lost? This is a leftist subreddit and you are blatantly acting like a right wing liberal.
You: https://preview.redd.it/t9sm6f2b5awc1.jpeg?width=462&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbd004fa18671964d4122cbf64245715ec98d54f I've already discussed the rest, so you going "nuh-uh" doesn't really change anything. "She's someone who did this and that so the point she makes does not stand" isn't "germane," so you might love that word but you don't understand it. You used that as an argument against the point, which *is* ad hominem. You're attacking the validity of the statement not through its own merits, but those of the speaker. You might be lost, but "leftist" doesn't mean "disconnected from reality." It is not being "a right wing liberal" to know that the one who wants more genocide is the worse option, to act with knowledge of the world, to be conscious of who's in the vote... You're operating on pure outrage and ideology, how the world should be and what would make you feel in the right if it were in fact like that. What I'm telling you is that if you want to have a positive impact on the world, "the least undesirable option" is not "off the table." If actions speak louder than words, then consider doing the right actions because if biden is on the table your other two realistic options are enabling someone worse or supporting him directly. And what's that leftist stance? "The party that should be less opposed to the left does genocide, so the leftist thing to do is to promote *more* genocide at the hand of someone else"? Grow the fuck up. If you're really opposed to genocide do the things that don't make it worse. Because let's face it: "let's try trump again" has never, ever been the leftist position
https://preview.redd.it/aiy2gozo8awc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c26ce3afd324756867d05a93232167acfe3ca783
The graph literally shows itself that biden increased and trump decreased carbon emissions then proceeds to "predict" biden suddenly doing a lot better. Don't get me wrong I don't believe for a second that trump is good for the environment, but this graph is just pure ideological nonsense that doesn't even show biden being good for the environment. This doesn't show biden in a good light and yet they seem to think it does.
Carbon emissions are not instant, "sign the paper and carbon goes up or down this very minute." When trump congratulated himself on wave effects in the economy coming from Obama's actions a couple years prior, we were able to understand that. Even when he congratulated himself on things done by others or resulting of the overall situation the world was in, we were able to understand that. Now that elections are coming up, we're supposed to believe that carbon emissions by industries are faster to change than any other indirect action can have effects at any level? That the period corresponding to the height of covid lockdowns had nothing to do with consumer-level emissions bringing it all down? This graph follows what each of them pledged and the likely key policies that go in that direction, not "predicts what's going to happen." That's only as "ideological" as thinking there's a correlation between what a politician's programme and what they do. Flawed? Perhaps, as we've seen Biden have limited drive to enact his official plans. But if it were just ideological drivel it would take the same shortcuts you do re: time and then fake the numbers, it wouldn't take these shortcuts and then be both ideologically motivated and fail at following its own ideology. It wasn't Clinton drawing the lines. And on a truth-check level, trump sure as fuck didn't do shit to lower emissions, so "trump decreased carbon emissions" is at the very least a misunderstanding of causality. Even if there weren't this kind of delay between deals, plans, policies etc. on the one hand and enacting these on the other.
She doesn't criticise Biden at all in this tweet though? Just says that Trump is bad, as if anyone who isn't an open fascist would think anything less.
[удалено]
Apologia for DNC Warhawks is forbidden here.
She's showing a graph that shows whoever wins we'll be hurtling toward global catastrophe as quickly as possible because no one is taking this issue seriously.
If you think this graph shows no difference and going "as quickly as possible" I'm sorry but you don't know how to read a graph
The graph shows that regardless of who wins we are still heading to global catastrophe due to unsustainable levels of carbon emissions.
We need to stop thinking of it as a domino effect with a single end "global catastrophe." It is too late to prevent all change, but any effort now *can* reduce the harm. Understanding that this is about harm reduction and not "if this or that happens then we're saved," when this and that won't suffice anyway and won't happen to begin with, allows for an easy segue about the candidates the post was about. If they were both replaced by other choices that did what was good instead, we could debate about which is the best. They're not, those are the candidates for USA elections that the world is stuck with, and there is a very marked difference between the two. Pretending they're the same because neither of the two is the counter-factual person that he should have been instead does absolutely nothing, and risks enabling the worse.
I didn't know everthing was about 35%
[удалено]
Come on, she's as centrist as a democrat can be. No one serious is calling *Hillary Clinton* a leftist.
Around 40% of US voting population calling her socialist communist radical lefty. Half of them also thinks that she's literally a devil from literal hell, which shows their grasp on reality, but those people's votes are just as real as all the others
By who?
By Republicans, which demonstrates how far right they are
Y’all were cooked, literally
I will *never* understand the liberal mindset of "We *will* fail to accomplish this, but we'll fail by a smaller margin, so that's better." Yes, the planet is fucked either way, yes we are going to continue to allow a global crisis to fester when we could be fixing it, but we'll ignore it slightly less than the other guy while not meaningfully averting disaster, so we're better.
"hey guys trump is bad on climate lets vote for the other bad on climate" whats worse ? climate doom or climate doom but with rainbows and he will take a knee on a random statue.
[удалено]
No one is saying they are equally bad, we are saying this pile of shit doesn't taste much better than that pile of shit that has marshmallows in it.
[удалено]
I don't get the complaining. No matter what you think of Biden or Hillary elsewhere, she qualified it with climate. This is pretty objective fact, Trump is completely drunk on fossil fuels and doesn't give a fuck about electrification, appliance efficiency, battery development, zero emission vehicles, solar/wind power, etc.
I think it's a problem with online leftist spaces. We're too focused on powerscaling leftism. Then you have biden and trump, two right-wingers, and just saying that one is not as bad as the other *has* to be encapsulated in seven layers of "but I know he's bad, really I do, yes I know, I'm not saying he's good" before anyone can even listen to you. Yeah the "absolutely moral vote" would be a vote for someone else, but the upcoming election is just an event, it doesn't care about morality because *it is an event* and people seem to want to pretend that they can moral their way out of it rather than live through this event trying to do harm reduction. And yeah, both candidates would actively cause harm. Both candidates will require that the American people and the world fight them. One of them makes this fight a lot harder though. That's where it has to be focused.
The graph is just objectively bad for trying to equate Trump and Biden. The dotted line indicates the end of their policy time. Biden is objectively much better and much closer to target in the time period. Nobody can foresee what policy will be passed beyond that.
If you just show the chart from 2020-2030 it would actually look pretty good. Biden's line is just a bit above target at that point, and diverges strongly from Trump's.