[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83097)
Message
File  []
close
fine.jpg
830978309783097
>> No. 83097 Anonymous
10th July 2017
Monday 10:59 pm
83097 spacer
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

I challenge anyone to read this and still oppose the need for radical social change.
Expand all images.
>> No. 83098 Anonymous
10th July 2017
Monday 11:38 pm
83098 spacer
>radical social change

How does communism or whatever solve climate change?

There are some serious question marks that appeared when reading that essay. They first emerge when it is talking about fossil fuels being something we need in typical peak oil fashion, then it starts comparing ocean ph to human blood...
>> No. 83099 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 1:39 am
83099 spacer
It's a great time to be an accelerationist.
>> No. 83100 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 2:10 am
83100 spacer
>>83099
I do like RationalWiki very much.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accelerationism
>> No. 83101 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 2:39 am
83101 spacer
It's already fixed, we just don't realise it yet.

China is the biggest polluter in the world, but they're also the biggest investor in sustainable energy. In the short term, they're massively increasing production of lithium batteries, solar cells and smart grid technology. In the medium term, they're pouring money into thorium, pebble bed and fusion reactor technology. They're not doing this out of any altruistic impulse, but because bankrupting the oil industry will be spectacularly profitable.

The prices of solar panels and lithium batteries are plummeting, to the point that sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many places. Solar cells cost $15/Wp in 1998, $8/Wp in 2008 and under $1/Wp today. Lithium batteries have followed a similar price trajectory. Tesla's new Gigafactory will produce more lithium batteries than all existing factories combined; three new factories by LG Chem, Foxconn and BYD will double that again, all before 2020.

When low-carbon technology is the cheaper alternative, the unstoppable wheels of capitalism do all the hard work. People involved in the renewable energy industry are remarkably laid back about climate change, because they can see how quickly the transition is happening. The bottleneck now isn't technology, politics, or economics, but how quickly we can build factories. We literally can't pour concrete fast enough, which is really saying something if you've seen how fast the Chinese can erect a building.

Most of us can remember what life was like before smartphones and the internet. In the space of two decades, our daily life was completely transformed by new technology. Gimmicky gadgets straight out of science fiction became so ubiquitous that now we can't imagine life without them. Sustainable energy technology today is about where communications was in 2003 - everyone has got dialup modems and 3310s, but broadband and the iPhone are right around the corner. In about twenty years time, you'll be trying to describe the smell of petrol to a teenager and they'll look at you with a mixture of confusion and pity.
>> No. 83102 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 11:26 am
83102 spacer
>>83100

I find it a mixed bag. There are a few subjects where the bias is not towards rationalism but towards cultural Marxist/ post-structralist stances, which regardless of your opinion of it you have to accept is not objective (like rationalism strives to be, if not is) but a political ideologies. Some of which contradict the rationalist stance. Which would be fine, apart from when you call yourself rational wiki it comes across as an obnoxious appeal to irrelivant authority.
>> No. 83103 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 12:10 pm
83103 spacer
>>83102
I like how this post looks vaguely intellectual but is actually uninformed dreck.
>> No. 83104 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 12:18 pm
83104 spacer
>>83102
Do they have a page on race realism? If not, you should make one since you are so rational.
>> No. 83105 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 12:34 pm
83105 spacer
>>83103

How so? Rationalwiki takes the stance that it the conclusions all well informed people should come to as the rational and skeptics conclusion, it isn't, it is frequently articles are just left wing popularism. None of what I said is wrong.
>> No. 83106 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 12:56 pm
83106 spacer
>>83105

The example I always think of is that the 'healthy at every size' article was for a long time heavily in favour of it where the medical profession stance is that there is no such thing.
>> No. 83107 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 1:52 pm
83107 spacer
A friend showed my this recently. Try to excuse the forgive forget bullshit at the beginning, the video is actually quite interesting. I'd like to hear some opinions or information about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prW0anJmzME
>> No. 83108 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 3:25 pm
83108 spacer

Capture.png
831088310883108
>>83107
It appears that the people in control of the remaining 'Anonymous' news channels have sunk to the level of Godlike Productions, that's not particularly interesting, seems inevitable in retrospect. That is what you meant, right? I tried to skip through the chemtrails rubbish at the start but it seemed to go on for the entire video, so I can only conclude ...
>> No. 83109 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 5:51 pm
83109 spacer
>>83105
>None of what I said is wrong.
You're right there, albeit not in the way you were thinking.
>> No. 83110 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 6:49 pm
83110 spacer
>>83109

Were you always a smug cunt or did they send you to a public school for socially abrasive children?
>> No. 83111 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 9:09 pm
83111 spacer
>>83097
The especially scariest part of that article for me, is the ancient plagues being released.
>> No. 83124 Anonymous
12th July 2017
Wednesday 7:32 pm
83124 spacer
>>83108

I thought Anonymous specifically didn't believe in Xenu?
>> No. 87733 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 1:18 am
87733 spacer

the virgin you.png
877338773387733
>>83099
Just look at how memes are evolving in the Current Year and it's obvious where things are heading.
>> No. 87949 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 11:21 am
87949 spacer
I wouldn't mind if RationalWiki called itself "Well Informed Leftist Wiki" instead, because that's what it is.

I agree with most of what's on there, but it pisses me off that it claims some kind of neutrality and objectivity when it's blatantly biased. Some of the articles are intolerably fucking smug, too, because internet lefties are just like that.

Winds me up that people don't realise gloating over a flimsy right wing straw-man does absolutely nothing to win support. We can thank everyone who participates in that kind of circle-jerking, left and right, for our currently so entrenched and bitterly divisive state of affairs.
>> No. 87950 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 11:41 am
87950 spacer
>>87949
>I wouldn't mind if RationalWiki called itself "Well Informed Leftist Wiki"
Surely the two are synonymous?
>intolerably fucking smug, too, because internet lefties are just like that

Seriously though it does baffle me how left-wingers continue to think, or not as the case may be, that calling anyone who votes Conservative a rude name is a good idea. It's not all of them, but a lot of the pleb-lefties are just wankers, well meaning wankers, but even so.
>> No. 87953 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 12:59 pm
87953 spacer
>>87950
I'm sure people will stop calling Tory voters cunts when they stop being cunts.
>> No. 88107 Anonymous
12th December 2019
Thursday 9:18 pm
88107 spacer
>>87950

>that calling anyone who votes Conservative a rude name is a good idea.

Self-perceived moral superiority. And how dare you doubt my view point.
>> No. 88504 Anonymous
15th December 2019
Sunday 2:27 am
88504 spacer
>>87949

The ones I always remember getting right up my fucking nose are the ones that contradict with what is by definition 'rationalism'.

I remember for a long time them being full on 'fat shaming by doctors is real, healthy at every size, intesectionalists unite' thankfully that situation has at least improved.

Mind you wikipedia can't even state the correct date for when the first bomberman game was released without someone editing it back to the wrong one so I'm not sure what standard you can realistically expect from a site that contains debatable topics and anyone can edit.
>> No. 88511 Anonymous
15th December 2019
Sunday 10:10 am
88511 spacer
>>88504
Wikipedia's problem is that most people who know better would prefer to disparage Wikipedia rather than spending that same effort engaging in the editing process (which by the way needn't start and definitely doesn't end with pressing the edit button).

And there's no way Wikipedia doesn't state the correct date since there are a bunch of different dates given depending on where you look with different reasoning behind them. You're unhappy that one info box doesn't contain your preferred date.
>> No. 88515 Anonymous
15th December 2019
Sunday 12:54 pm
88515 spacer
>>88511

The edit war is based on the fact that hudsonsoft US nintendo team released a statement say 30 years of bomberman in 2015. This issue is that is the date that bomber man came out in the US, on the NES. The game was actually released 2 years earlier on the MSX (and inbetween multiple other systems) everywhere but in the US (although rebranded as Eric and the floaters in Europe because glorifying terrorism was considered a moral concern). There are paragraphs of people arguing quite logically and rightly that 1983 is clearly the date on the edit page, as they bloody owned the game before 85. But then US yards change it back to 85 because that's what the statement they've over generalised says that none of them have ever justified.

What makes this weirder is that the first game of the series is rightfully labelled on its page the 1983 game because you can't argue it first came out on a port when it is a clearly and objectively defined in a way the franchise wasn't at that point.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password