Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Phoenixmgs]

Buddy, the only people that give a shit about pronouns are either
A) people tired of getting aggressively misgendered
or
B) dipshit assholes who forget how language works as soon as they see some hair dye

Then why is latinx even a thing?

You make shit up, dude. Don't make shit up.

Straight up, the reason I decline to have more involved conversations with you than just calling bullshit occasionally is because a conversation is meant to be give-and-take and through your actions, dishonesty and overbearing egoism, you have made clear that you're only interested in taking. You want everyone to tell you how smart you are, but the harder you try, the worse it makes you look.

You have the ability to become as smart as you want us to believe you are; you obviously have the time and energy; but I don't think you have the discipline. And until you find the will to change that, we're going to continue sitting here unimpressed and calling bullshit. It's up to you, dude. You want to be an intellectual? Put in the hours.

Dude, I posted something about woke culture in a woke culture thread that's mainly for funzies and I somehow moved the goalposts when I stayed on subject as much as you possibly could... How does that make any fucking sense? Put in the hours to learn what moving the goalpost actually means or strawman or Dunning-Kruger, things that get thrown out by many here (not saying you in particular) all the time and not used properly, it's like how nobody on this forum actually knows what ludonarrative dissonance is with regards to video games. You don't give a fucking inch in any debate and think you initial take is 100% right. I've never been dishonest in a single post here. I don't have discipline... that just shows you know me very little.

 

[Buyetyen]

Then why is latinx even a thing?

I've met a few Latin people who don't care for it. Even they were far less offended by it that you are.

Dude, I posted something about woke culture in a woke culture thread that's mainly for funzies and I somehow moved the goalposts when I stayed on subject as much as you possibly could... How does that make any fucking sense?

The whooshing noise is the point going right over your head.

Put in the hours to learn what moving the goalpost actually means or strawman or Dunning-Kruger,

Back atcha. Knowing something is a thing does not make you immune to doing it.

You don't give a fucking inch in any debate and think you initial take is 100% right. I've never been dishonest in a single post here. I don't have discipline... that just shows you know me very little.

What you fail to understand is that I'm not here to debate. Debate is overrated. It's basically a beauty pageant for rhetoric. Most of what I do here is reading. Seeing other opinions, and in the case of some users, because they have hard-earned knowledge and experience in relevant spaces or jobs and can contribute from a deeper perspective and I enjoy learning things. What little I engage with is to Like a post, toss off a one-liner, or call bullshit on something I find egregiously wrong. And no dude, you are one of the most dishonest people on this forum. No I'm not going to go digging through your posting history to dredge up literally every single time. That would be petty, masochistic and stupid. I've read your shit. I don't trust you to argue in good faith. And that's why this is the first time we've spoken in a while.

If you want the last word, have at it. Peace out, homies.

 

[Silvanus]

Hard disagree Pakistan gets 4 billion a year from the US, announced a larger military budget than last year, sheltered Bin Laden, and is the number one source of terrorism funding by their ISI intelligence agency.

...I'm kind of failing to see why the shittiness of the current government of Pakistan means that wealthy countries are not responsible for the damage their fuel policies do to other nations.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Then why is latinx even a thing?

That's not even a fucking pronoun. You can't even stay on your own fucking topic for 2 posts in a row.

What's next, I point out that other countries have discourse about, say, travelers and Romani and for some reason they won't count as you pivot to some other bullshit thing?

 

[Gergar12]

...I'm kind of failing to see why the shittiness of the current government of Pakistan means that wealthy countries are not responsible for the damage their fuel policies do to other nations.

They are the ones asking for it. The others are just following along.

 

[Elijin]

@Phoenixmgs just casually ignoring our interaction in the hope that we'll all forget he said something so blatantly wrong

 

[Dalisclock]

@Phoenixmgs just casually ignoring our interaction in the hope that we'll all forget he said something so blatantly wrong

You're assuming a lot of self awareness there.

 

[Silvanus]

They are the ones asking for it. The others are just following along.

I can hardly think of anything more irrelevant than who happened to ask for it first.

The point of importance is that there's a moral and rational case. If one causes wilful and avoidable damage to another, they provide recompense. Its an accepted principle in both law and common morality.

 

[Gergar12]

I can hardly think of anything more irrelevant than who happened to ask for it first.

The point of importance is that there's a moral and rational case. If one causes wilful and avoidable damage to another, they provide recompense. Its an accepted principle in both law and common morality.

So Americans who weren't even born in the 1970s to 1980s, or had any part in Exxon gaslighting the world about climate change should pay for climate change done to Pakistani floodplains.

I also disagree with the subjective notion that since the US both caused lots of carbon(true), and people think the US benefited the most from carbon(since it's the richest country with carbon-emitting devices)(subjective) we should pay the most.

1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
2. United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
3. India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

Yes the US caused the world's second-largest amount of carbon according to this chart, and we should pay for just that. And by we I mean Exxon. But China is first.

World’s countries biggest carbon polluters - ClimateTrade

Not all countries face the same level of responsibility regarding the climate crisis. The biggest polluters need to take action to reduce their carbon emissions, but also to offset their carbon footprint by supporting environmental projects around the world. Each year more than 50 billion metric...

climatetrade.com

What does benefit really mean, I could argue China benefited from climate change more than the US. Since it grow more than the US in GDP PPP and became the world's second-richest economy in nominal GDP. Also taxing the end user of carbon while avoiding talking about the intermediate producers of industrial goods and services like China, or OPEC+Russia is problematic.

What this shakedown is about is conveniently combining a few things from order one to third most important to point the finger at the US.

1. Ability to pay via the notion of the US having a high GDP per Capita and high GDP

2. Carbon emitting total over a country's lifetime

3. Misc actions like the US denying climate change under republican admins

1. I dispute number one, your average US homeless person shouldn't have their sales tax revenue go to a rich Pakistani bureaucrat.

2. China emits more than the US via the chart, and I would argue this is the most important.

3. The US is changing its climate change commitments right now and is doing so faster vs China, and its Asian neighbors building coal fire plants.

So my question is why are you giving more weight to the total end national user benefit theory vs total benefit via growth of a national economy, criteria 1 vs criteria 2, and past policy actions vs current policy actions?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So Americans who weren't even born in the 1970s to 1980s, or had any part in Exxon gaslighting the world about climate change should pay for climate change done to Pakistani floodplains.

Should Pakistani's be paying for damage US businesses have done instead? No good solutions there.

You might also ask if ordinary taxpayers should pay for damages caused by business or political leaders, but that's par for the course.

 

[Gergar12]

Hot take I would rather the US admit to climate reparations by accepting climate refugees vs paying lump sums of money to a government.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hot take I would rather the US admit to climate reparations by accepting climate refugees vs paying lump sums of money to a government.

Very unpopular move, but that could work, yeah. There's at least one tiny Pacific island nation (Kiribati) which is going to be underwater in a generation or two. Everyone there would probably agree to be annexed by anyone with higher ground to stand on, and they are going to have to go looking for higher ground soon anyway. Want to put another star on your flag, prime candidate there.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So Americans who weren't even born in the 1970s to 1980s, or had any part in Exxon gaslighting the world about climate change should pay for climate change done to Pakistani floodplains.

Kinda really asks the question: Are governments contiguous? Can a government be held accountable for hurting people under it's last administration?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Kinda really asks the question: Are governments contiguous? Can a government be held accountable for hurting people under it's last administration?

If not, international treaties need to be torn up and redone every time there's a change of government.

But, even if a government can't be held accountable, the state still can, the government is merely spending the state's money, after all.

 

[Satinavian]

The point of importance is that there's a moral and rational case. If one causes wilful and avoidable damage to another, they provide recompense. Its an accepted principle in both law and common morality.

Personally i am far far more interested in actually trying to reduce further emissions than climate reparations (and the endless bickering about who is responsible for what, if damage is valued differently at different times, about how population changed, about how emissions in one country might benefit another country via supply chains etc. )

But instead of total current emission, i always prefer looking at emission per capita. And looking at the higher numbers, we see :

- Emission per capita of China is pretty much a in the same ballpark of EU countries. So the time of the talk about how first world countries should do more, is over. Just to be clear : The EU still should further reduce emissions, it is just that China should stop trying to be excempt for being a "developing country".

- The US roughly doubles that. So yes, the US should do far far more to curb its emission to reasonably levels. And yes, that obviously is possible with first world standard of living as many countries are showing.

40	Qatar	37.29	98,990,085	2,654,374
92	Montenegro	25.90	16,249,039	627,264
39	Kuwait	25.65	101,492,225	3,956,875
72	Trinidad and Tobago	25.39	34,974,263	1,377,560
28	United Arab Emirates	23.37	218,788,684	9,360,980
42	Oman	19.61	87,835,773	4,479,219
7	Canada	18.58	675,918,610	36,382,944
115	Brunei	18.28	7,672,127	419,800
99	Luxembourg	17.51	10,144,632	579,264
80	Bahrain	17.15	24,458,384	1,425,792
14	Australia	17.10	414,988,700	24,262,712
83	Estonia	17.02	22,402,414	1,316,510
177	Gibraltar	16.98	572,708	33,737
202	Falkland Islands	16.59	48,568	2,928
11	Saudi Arabia	15.94	517,079,407	32,443,447
2	United States	15.52	5,011,686,600	323,015,995
45	Turkmenistan	14.00	79,279,216	5,662,368
26	Kazakhstan	13.01	231,919,540	17,830,901
9	South Korea	11.85	604,043,830	50,983,457
137	Iceland	11.81	3,923,884	332,206
21	Taiwan	11.72	276,724,868	23,618,200
134	Bahamas	11.65	4,404,247	377,930
4	Russia	11.44	1,661,899,300	145,275,383
37	Czech Republic (Czechia)	10.53	111,825,428	10,618,857
175	Bermuda	10.09	639,352	63,362
5	Japan	9.70	1,239,592,060	127,763,265
33	Netherlands	9.62	163,419,285	16,981,295
6	Germany	9.44	775,752,190	82,193,768
57	Finland	9.31	51,183,960	5,497,713
23	Malaysia	8.68	266,251,542	30,684,654
61	Singapore	8.56	48,381,759	5,653,634
148	New Caledonia	8.53	2,338,717	274,191
49	Austria	8.43	73,764,112	8,747,301
41	Belgium	8.34	94,722,813	11,354,420
68	Ireland	8.32	39,086,565	4,695,779
64	Norway	8.28	43,456,012	5,250,949
56	Libya	8.12	52,696,075	6,492,162
8	Iran	8.08	642,560,030	79,563,989
51	Israel	8.04	65,201,588	8,108,985
20	Poland	7.81	296,659,670	37,989,220
78	Bosnia and Herzegovina	7.58	25,674,120	3,386,266
1	China	7.38	10,432,751,400	1,414,049,351
144	Martinique	7.21	2,715,477	376,791
74	New Zealand	7.14	33,276,202	4,659,265
59	Bulgaria	7.11	50,872,910	7,151,953
93	Slovenia	7.10	14,722,601	2,074,210
15	South Africa	6.95	390,557,850	56,207,646
71	Slovakia	6.77	36,817,242	5,442,003
70	Denmark	6.65	38,007,645	5,711,349
52	Belarus	6.63	62,655,669	9,445,643
62	Hong Kong	6.50	47,066,386	7,243,542
183	Cayman Islands	6.49	406,057	62,569

 

[Silvanus]

So Americans who weren't even born in the 1970s to 1980s, or had any part in Exxon gaslighting the world about climate change should pay for climate change done to Pakistani floodplains.

No, the government should. The government has more than enough ability to provide recompense without increasing the burden on the ordinary people: tax the fuel companies while also capping prices.

And the American gov. of today is responsible because they represent a country that continues to benefit from those decisions made by their predecessors-- and they also continue to exacerbate the problem even today.

I also disagree with the subjective notion that since the US both caused lots of carbon(true), and people think the US benefited the most from carbon(since it's the richest country with carbon-emitting devices)(subjective) we should pay the most.

1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
2. United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
3. India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

Yes the US caused the world's second-largest amount of carbon according to this chart, and we should pay for just that. And by we I mean Exxon. But China is first.

What does benefit really mean, I could argue China benefited from climate change more than the US. Since it grow more than the US in GDP PPP and became the world's second-richest economy in nominal GDP. Also taxing the end user of carbon while avoiding talking about the intermediate producers of industrial goods and services like China, or OPEC+Russia is problematic.

Yes, all of those countries should be paying some form of loss-and-damage payment to the countries worst affected.

What this shakedown is about is conveniently combining a few things from order one to third most important to point the finger at the US.

1. Ability to pay via the notion of the US having a high GDP per Capita and high GDP

2. Carbon emitting total over a country's lifetime

3. Misc actions like the US denying climate change under republican admins

1. I dispute number one, your average US homeless person shouldn't have their sales tax revenue go to a rich Pakistani bureaucrat.

2. China emits more than the US via the chart, and I would argue this is the most important.

3. The US is changing its climate change commitments right now and is doing so faster vs China, and its Asian neighbors building coal fire plants.

So my question is why are you giving more weight to the total end national user benefit theory vs total benefit via growth of a national economy, criteria 1 vs criteria 2, and past policy actions vs current policy actions?

I'm not. I'm not saying that the US is the most responsible (though it arguably is over the last half century). That's not really relevant. Moaning that other countries did just as bad doesn't somehow let you off the hook.

 

[Elijin]

It's interesting that a user who constantly fantasizes about how the US should throw it's power around on and dictate terms to the world, is not on board with the US taking responsibility for its part in the global climate crisis and the massive wealth inequality among countries.

Guess gerger only thinks the US should be a leader when its to shit on the independence of other nations.

 

[Silvanus]

Personally i am far far more interested in actually trying to reduce further emissions than climate reparations (and the endless bickering about who is responsible for what, if damage is valued differently at different times, about how population changed, about how emissions in one country might benefit another country via supply chains etc. )

Well yes, but it's not an either-or. The effort to avert future damage doesn't negate or lessen responsibility for damage already caused. And if reparation is owed, then it may act as a deterrent for states to act in damaging ways in future.

But instead of total current emission, i always prefer looking at emission per capita. And looking at the higher numbers, we see :

- Emission per capita of China is pretty much a in the same ballpark of EU countries. So the time of the talk about how first world countries should do more, is over. Just to be clear : The EU still should further reduce emissions, it is just that China should stop trying to be excempt for being a "developing country".

That is true. China is hugely wealthy and also bears responsibility. Although it should also be noted that China also does more to mitigate its net emissions than most other countries, and has seen one of the best rates of reforestation.

 

[Gergar12]

Very unpopular move, but that could work, yeah. There's at least one tiny Pacific island nation (Kiribati) which is going to be underwater in a generation or two. Everyone there would probably agree to be annexed by anyone with higher ground to stand on, and they are going to have to go looking for higher ground soon anyway. Want to put another star on your flag, prime candidate there.

Paying reparations for anything even for red-lining is unpopular.

No, the government should. The government has more than enough ability to provide recompense without increasing the burden on the ordinary people: tax the fuel companies while also capping prices.

And the American gov. of today is responsible because they represent a country that continues to benefit from those decisions made by their predecessors-- and they also continue to exacerbate the problem even today.



Yes, all of those countries should be paying some form of loss-and-damage payment to the countries worst affected.



I'm not. I'm not saying that the US is the most responsible (though it arguably is over the last half century). That's not really relevant. Moaning that other countries did just as bad doesn't somehow let you off the hook.

The problem is that the climate talks keep stating that the west should pay, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not China. China didn't even go to COP27.

China, India set to snub Cop27 leaders' climate summit

A weak turnout is expected from major emitters in Sharm el-Sheikh, shifting the geopolitical showdown to a G20 leaders' summit in Bali

www.climatechangenews.com

 

[Silvanus]

The problem is that the climate talks keep stating that the west should pay, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not China. China didn't even go to COP27.

So what's your proposal, then? Unless everyone agrees to provide recompense, then nobody should, and the countries that suffer the effects worst of all-- and did not cause the problem-- just get nothing from the countries that did?

Putting aside the fact that the US produces twice as much carbon per capita than China.