Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

Still doesn’t make Trump just business as usual though, no matter how much you paint it that way.
 
f Biden gets in the race he might even find himself pandering to the kiddies strategically and getting on board with all the "in 10 years climate change is irreversible - ban gas cars by then!" schtick
"Shtick"
 
Because caring about the issue that's eventually gonna kill the planet = kiddie shtick.
 
I guess you could consider it a "kiddie" thing, since it's our children who are going to have to face the Hell World and not these doddering old bastards in leadership.
 
Because caring about the issue that's eventually gonna kill the planet = kiddie shtick.

It's pathetic the view that some people have towards climate change. Deniers will always use language like that to make it seem like anyone fighting climate change is wasting their time (much like kids do when they're passionate about something). I ****ing hate it.

Electric cars, like Tesla, are marvels of technology. People don't have to like Elon Musk (most don't), but to disregard the advances he's made with the technology is stupid and childish.
 
Last edited:
Did that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez really change her voice to speak to a black audience?

I haven't seen the clip as I don't have sound right now but just seeing a few funny pictures has got me wondering.

People change how they speak around different groups. Not everyone does it or they take longer to adjust, but it's a real thing and not uncommon.
 
People change how they speak around different groups. Not everyone does it or they take longer to adjust, but it's a real thing and not uncommon.
Like I said I haven't actually heard the audio to see if its people over reacting or her genuinely being daft I will reserve judgement till I hear it.

But personally I don't know any politicians who change how they talk to fit certain groups I've never seen Corbyn or May open a speech in South London by going "Wagwan." :funny:
 
Like I said I haven't actually heard the audio to see if its people over reacting or her genuinely being daft I will reserve judgement till I hear it.

But personally I don't know any politicians who change how they talk to fit certain groups I've never seen Corbyn or May open a speech in South London by going "Wagwan." :funny:

Are they from South London? AOC is from the Bronx. She would have heard the different ways of speaking growing up and probably adjusted her own way of speaking depending on who she was talking to. Like I said, this is something perfectly natural and people do it all the time.
 
Are they from South London? AOC is from the Bronx. She would have heard the different ways of speaking growing up and probably adjusted her own way of speaking depending on who she was talking to. Like I said, this is something perfectly natural and people do it all the time.
Two very English people are very similar to a woman from the Bronx. How you not know that Elektra1? :o
 
Ok after hearing her compared to how she usually talks this sounds cringey as all hell.
 
Curious question, would a white politician doing that be responded to with acceptance or something else?

I’ve seen the code switching argument used in reference to this but somehow it seems to be described neutrally/positively for AOC but I doubt that would be the case for anyone doing it.
 
Curious question, would a white politician doing that be responded to with acceptance or something else?

I’ve seen the code switching argument used in reference to this but somehow it seems to be described neutrally/positively for AOC but I doubt that would be the case for anyone doing it.

Really? The old if a white person did it it would be different argument? If their background warranted the change in dialect then sure. Eminem does it. Users here do it when they visit family in the South. I do it when I speak German. I've even spoken with a German accent when I came back to Canada and chatted with friends.

It would be different if a white person who grew up in the suburbs spoke "black" to a black audience and I highly doubt anyone would do that. It wouldn't make sense unless they lived in a predominantly black area and picked up the dialect.
 
Curious question, would a white politician doing that be responded to with acceptance or something else?

I’ve seen the code switching argument used in reference to this but somehow it seems to be described neutrally/positively for AOC but I doubt that would be the case for anyone doing it.
I think it would heavily depend on how natural it is. I know I have a different accent with people I am comfortable with. I mean, I know this because my family and friends have told me I talk differently when with them.
 
Because caring about the issue that's eventually gonna kill the planet = kiddie shtick.


I didn't say anything remotely like that.

I said the "in 10 years it'll be irreversible" thing is party-line schtick. Read that report they're sourcing, the scientists that wrote it have come out saying that's not remotely what they were getting at.

But by all means, paint it as a "duh huh look at the guy who doesn't think climate change isn't real durr durr" fallacy if it's more convenient for you.
 
I didn't say anything remotely like that.

I said the "in 10 years it'll be irreversible" thing is party-line schtick. Read that report they're sourcing, the scientists that wrote it have come out saying that's not remotely what they were getting at.

But by all means, paint it as a "duh huh look at the guy who doesn't think climate change isn't real durr durr" fallacy if it's more convenient for you.

I'm not sure, but I bet you those scientists are talking about a wide misconception about what they said. At no point, we're they like, "we've got 10 years, or the planet's climate is going to be irreversibly different." Instead, I took the report to say, "in 12 years, we'll have reached a critical point that locks in these long term effects."

So, it's not that we'll see the impacts in the next 12 years, but our ability to fix the situation becomes much more difficult after this 12 year window. That's how I took it anyway.
 
That's the point though, we don't have to in 12 years. According to the report these people are citing.

That's part of the backlash to this climate change stuff and you know it. The vast, vast majority of people agree it's a real thing that's happening, both parties, but when you start framing it as this apocalyptic immediacy and blaming every tornado & hurricane we get on it, calling to phase out fossil fuels entirely in a decade and replace the coal infrastructure with...wind farms, calling to shut down potential oil pipelines yet not seeming to care that trucking the stuff from Canada as we currently do has more of a carbon footprint, people tune out.

Irreversible-in-a-decade is basically "the Maldives will be underwater by 2008" Al Gore bull****, and it's not even what the scientists were claiming in the first place.
 
I couldn't give less of a **** about shutting down coal mines. I can't believe we still have them.

People are against man made climate change. They may agree that climate change is a thing, but they stupidly think it's a natural cycle and there's nothing we did or can do about it. I hate those people.

It needs to be a conversation about doing something now. It's annoying that people sit back and go no big deal because they haven't had to deal with the effects of climate change. My province is seeing more and larger wildfires. I want action now. Europe gets it.
 
Last edited:
You basically have to frame it in ****ing apocalyptic terms to have a snowball's chance in hell of anyone ever getting off their ass about it.
This. Most people in America don't care about something unless it's going to effect them personally in the relatively near future. We top the charts in selfishness. Lifestyles have to change and if we keep viewing it as a vague, slow future process that change will never come until it really is too late.
 
I couldn't give less of a **** about shutting down coal mines. I can't believe we still have them.


You'll have them until people put aside this childish knee-jerk "nuclear's icky" crap. The fact nuclear isn't even a part of the conversation with these newbies to congress with their green plan is pretty telling. Not people to be taken seriously.

If they want to actually be adults on this stuff, and there's something to be done about it. The pie-in-the-sky "we can run a major modern nation on solar & wind farms" fallacy is your major problem here, not whether the majority of the electorate believes in broad terms that climate change is happening. It's just a matter of what to do about it, how quickly, and whose livelihoods you're willing to curbstomp in order to meet the goals.

Keep in mind, the U.S. met the Kyoto Protocol goals set in 2000 without ever signing the damn thing. A lot of this is hot-air hysteria, globally/comparatively we're pretty good on all of this.

Of course, there's more that can be done. But not until you've got something not just comparatively-affordable (which of course solar is) but reliable and scaleable to replace the coal with. Which we have, b-b-but negative buzzwords.
 
That's the point though, we don't have to in 12 years. According to the report these people are citing.

That's part of the backlash to this climate change stuff and you know it. The vast, vast majority of people agree it's a real thing that's happening, both parties, but when you start framing it as this apocalyptic immediacy and blaming every tornado & hurricane we get on it, calling to phase out fossil fuels entirely in a decade and replace the coal infrastructure with...wind farms, calling to shut down potential oil pipelines yet not seeming to care that trucking the stuff from Canada as we currently do has more of a carbon footprint, people tune out.

Irreversible-in-a-decade is basically "the Maldives will be underwater by 2008" Al Gore bull****, and it's not even what the scientists were claiming in the first place.
No one blames all the tornadoes or hurricanes on climate change. The issue is the amount and ferocity are going up. The ice caps are melting in front of our eyes. Sea levels are rising. The oceans are heating up. Wildfire season is basically year around in California at this point. There is an immediacy that is being ignored because it isn't Fury Road yet in everyone's backyard. The truth is we are already seeing effects, and there is damage being done now that needs to be stopped to lessen the impact in the future.

Also the right is ****ing horrible on the topic, ranging from straight up lying to simply ignoring it.
 
Last edited:
All of that stuff is legitimately happening, yes. Thing is, that's not news to anyone bar the hardcore, the majority of the country according to polling buys the science.

They just calculate that there's a good-for-business component here in pushing it as doomsday, and can smell the horse**** when it's overreached on. In conjunction with not being the dummies you make them out to be in terms of being able to grasp that this is a process, you don't just flick a switch and outlaw a pretty significant segment of the economy overnight in order to meet an emissions goal.

It'll be a couple decades yet. Get Musk to find a way to get an actually-attractive-to-consumers everyman electric car under 30 grand that doesn't catch on fire, people'll get on the bandwagon. Start exploring nuclear options, you'll accelerate getting off the coal. Show the public you're actually of good faith by not denouncing pipelines on ideological grounds in the meantime, given they're cleaner than not having the pipeline in the first place and using hundreds of gas-guzzling bigrigs as we do now.

As it stands, the Gore model is being used, and the Gore model's basically more worthless than he is. People don't buy the snake oil. But if you take a step back, take the science as-is, don't just dismiss these same climatologists when they suggest nuclear as a viable safe alternative for the power grid, people by-and-large will hear you out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"