It didn't change anything, the big dogs are afraid to rock the boat. They know that the instant anyone does, they might have to learn how to compete again.
Actually, the current news is that a reversal will be voted on in Congress (don't know when) with heavy Democrat support.
The aim is twofold: 1. Get net neutrality back, and 2. If the vote doesn't pass because of Republican opposition, it will be on public record that those Republican reps and senators voted against MASSIVE public opinion. This is a Congressional election year (this November), so the weight of this vote is huge.
I hate partisan politics, and I prefer independent candidates and platforms, but I can't help but get behind the Dems on this one.
Single issue voters will be the death of our republic.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
And shaming voters who think and vote differently than we do will speed up the decline in voter turnout, further limiting the voices that actually determine who our representatives are.
So think about this: the pro net neutrality argument is based off the fear of something happening. It's a red flag for propaganda.
.
It's page one of the political rule book. You must either support net neutrality or you're against good internet. You must approve of Obama's presidency or you're racist. You must support mass immigration or you hate mexicans and Muslims. You must activly support gay marriage or you're a homophobe.
.
Their play is to emotionally appeal to what feels good and paint the picture that if you dont buy in, you must be the extreme opposite.
Its all propiganda.
deleted
· 6 years ago
Did you misspell "propaganda" on purpose to lay a pun about capitalist pigs?
@princessmonstertru I think there's a difference between unfounded fear and a logical assumption. Propaganda is based on fear and usually comes from politicians while a logical assumption/an educated prediction comes from experts on the topic and actually goes against politicians. The former could be things like "the Red scare" or "refugees will convert all of Europe to Islam" while the latter is stuff like net neutrality (ask anyone working in IT, they're gonna tell you that net neutrality has to stay) or climate change. Maybe humanity is finally realizing that listening to experts is better than listening to politicians who sold out to a bunch of companies.
I agree with what you're saying but i have one very important distinction. How can you tell the difference between a politician and one of these "experts"?
.
I would argue that politicians are very aware of how untrustworthy the public believes them to be. But they're very smart and very wealthy. It's easy for them to buy people in white coats to make charts and graphs that tell whatever story they need it to. I would place climate change at the center of this concept too.
Pseudo-scientists paid by politicians are a thing, sure. But the scientific community does check itself, too. It's called peer-refiews. Most of these "scientists" who get paid for nodding to politicians get called out by the scientific community.
I believe thats true to some extent. The problem is that it will end up like a media correction. The big story is on the front page and the correction is on page 14c in small print.
.
Also, the scientific community itselfe is'nt in agreement. Since the 70's there have been countless studies and papers written about temperatures rising and falling. The scientific community has predicted all kinds of future models that they have associated with human activity.
I agree with the first point. But I attribute this problem to the media, not to scientists themselves. Many media outlets present stuff that sells, like scandals, gossip and other crap that doesn't actually have any impact on real life, instead of focusing on the important stuff. Even many politically focused channels spend way too much time looking at totally unimportant things like Trump's tweets instead of actually analyzing world events.
As to the second point... by that token we shouldn't trust anything that we hear or read, ever. There will always be disagreements, exceptions in data, wrong conclusions drawn out of improbable correlations. We can't discard the majority of results which produce consistent theories though, else we'd all be pre-Socratic Relativists.
Of course scientists don't agree with each other exactly; if they did we'd finish science, and that's not the point of science. Science is about growing your understanding, and the disagreements grow from that. They're not about if climate change is real; they're about how much of it is from natural cycles, how much we've fucked it up, how fucked we are and how soon the human race will be completely fucked over if nothing is done.
And for any who use the "it's happened before" line in reference to natural heating and cooling of the Earth, I'd invite you to look at this timeline: https://xkcd.com/1732/
You don't even need to read all of it, just scroll and watch the line. But do slow down near the end.
Im a big fan of the impact Socrates made on mankind! :) I guess to me, seeing is believing. I'm not referring to observing a changing climate. What i'm seeing are the things that tell a story but weren't ment to be seen. For example, there are significant discrepancies in the data/measurements that people have used in charts in order to make a case for climate change which maked me question the validity. But what jumps out at me is that every single one of those charts is plotted in a way that greatly exaggerates the actual change and trend. To me, that shows intent to push an opinion vs a display of reality. At that point i throw in the validity towel in on whatever claim they're making.
.
Questionable data + computer model assumptions + biased display = an agenda of some kind.
.
And then comes the emotional appeal that i must be a bad person if i dont believe in epidemic climate change (think of the poor polar bears). Then i know its BS.
Kamatsu, thats an amasing timeline. The entire span of that timeline shows a fluctuation of less than 5deg C of temperature change in a 22,000 year time period. Do you think that thermometers were accurate to within 5deg back in 20kBC?
.
I know you posted after my last one but this is a perfect example of what i was talking about. Temperature measurements that could never be truely know (assumptions). A graph of stretched out numbers to establish a norm with a small degree change at the bottom and massive assumed curve at the end. All of it solidified with emotional statements of doom and gloom if we dont stop everything were doing.
You make a fair point on the emotional side of the argument, but after taking a look at the papers the data gained from the climate reconstructions all has an uncertainty of +- 1.5 degrees Celsius or less. Meaning that, yes, the hypothetical 20kBC thermometer is accurate to within 5 degrees.
We can't go back in time to measure the temperature, so we'll never have the precision that we could have for the temperature today. This I won't and can't deny. However, these reconstructions are based off of reliable mathematical models and would never have been used to even try this if the scientists behind the papers didn't have enough reliable data to use the model to calculate a result with reasonable accuracy and precision.
Also, best way to avoid those biased graphs (which I will admit the one I showed is towards the end, but it's the best understandable example of the point that I have) is to go to the papers themselves, see if you can understand what they have there.
In particular, the graphs combined with the relatively understandable refuges of the abstract and the results should give you a clearer and more trustworthy picture than any news story or webcomic page written by a guy who knows lots about a few narrow fields can.
@princessmonstertru Exactly. But Socrates was one of the first people who promoted a narrative based on observation and reason. The Greek society was in a kind of nihilistic/relativistic state because the people realized that beliefs and norms are subjective, they're based on culture and they're different in every society, and the Greeks' ethics and morals started falling apart. Socrates promoted dialogue, weighing all options and seeing what is right "with the eyes of reason". So shouldn't you be for the mainstream scientific narrative since the scientific community decided what is correct by using reason which is based on observation?
ewqua, i would be on board
.....if i believed them. But i believe that it's highly politicized to the point that in 2006 Al Gore says the world will end in 10 years when the last time I checked it's exactly the same or even a bit cooler.
.
Kamatsu, we dont and cant know for sure the accuracies of those models but I assume it's roughly the same accuracy of the model Al Gore used in 2006. Also, did you see the little side note on that chart at 16000bc that says "limits of this data"? Why should those 1 deg C sharp changes be ignored while the 1 degC change that started in the 20th century is the end of the world as we know it? This whole graph is built to manipulate the reader into thinking it's worse than it is. Ic global warming is so bad, why is there such a need to skew the data and perception?
Al Gore is a sleazy motherfucker and he made the issue highly politicized, that is true. But the current political climate, at least in the US, seems to be against environmental protection. So I definitely wouldn't call it government propaganda since the government itself is against it.
Besides, even if climate change wasn't a thing, what's wrong with being eco-friendly anyway?
The government is against it now. That wasn't the case until a little while ago.
Eco-friendliness is only a problem when someone else is making that decision for others.
It depends on the detention of eco friendly and who's to blame.
.
Should we take care of the only world we have?? Unconditionally yes!
.
It's when an exagerated man-caused negative change in climate is blamed on corperations when it really bothers me. People will buy the newest iphone before they pay rent and use it to blog about how much polution the truck that delivered it to their door makes. They'll sit in their soaking bath, in their warm apartment and dream up protest marches on the natural gas pipeline expansion that will continue to deliver their comfort.
.
And the ONLY reason they have this skewed paradigm is because a bunch of politicians need their vote to stay in power and theres a lot more eco-minded, compasionate voters than there are corporate shareholders and CEOs.
.
It's an illusion. But if you point out the illusion, you must be an earth hater.
I almost fully agree with that. Are big corporations to blame for pollution? Yes, I think so. The problem is that they often outsource their company to a country with less strict environmental regulations. Because they'd rather turn a profit than abide by regulations, even though they are fully aware of the reason why those regulations are in place.
But are people who talk about environmental protection while being wasteful huge hypocrites? Abso-fucking-lutely. Posting about being eco-friendly while driving alone in a car with your newly bought watter bottle that you'll throw away at the end of the day, your new phone that you bought just because the old one was getting a bit slow and new clothes because the old ones are out of style now? Whoever does that can fuck off. I'm legit trying to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle only to have the idea ruined by pretentious assholes.
Also, why the fuck aren't we investing in hemp plastics yet?
Ha, i guess i dont know anything about hemp plastics.
.
I think there's a lot off opportunity for most meaple to learn more about how and why corperations work. Everyone envisions old fat white guys sitting in a Scrooge mc duck silo of money choosing another gold coin over a dieing polar bear.
.
Depending on the type of business, most companies struggle to maintain 25% net to gross profit margin. What people obsess about is how much more 25% of a $50M company is than what they make. What they dont think about is the risk involved. Nobody would ever start a company and expose themselves to that much risk if there werent a substantial reward if it works. No reward, no risk, no iphones.
.
Unreasonable enviromental tax on a company will hurt its profitability. Diminished profit hurts the consumers , employees, and share holders.
.
Thats why it's so important to be realistic about where we sit enviromentaly, so we can proceed accordingly instead of reacting to political propiganda.
The US was regulating itselfe out of business with the rest of the world. Being an enviromental leader is good, but not to the point it renders all your companies unable to compete with the rest of the world. All said and done, the government gets 100% of its money from companies. Kill the companies and the government will run out of money to "help" the enviroment.
You do realize they won't be paying anything right? All they'll do is shift the cost onto their customers and they'll make a pretty penny doing it too. And before anyone says "well just don't buy it," that is not a realistic viewpoint when everyone wants/needs internet to go about their daily lives. At this point it is not a luxury good but a necessity to maintain the basic standard of living. Granted its not needed for survival but then really who only just wants to survive? I'd rather live thank you very much.
It's perfectly reasonable, people just need to grow a spine. If they won't do that (don't try to tell me they can't) then we as a society don't deserve any better.
It's not a matter of growing a spine. To run any business in this day and age you must have an internet connection. Major retailers simply couldn't function without it. Most of our current infrastructure is based around having the internet. This is not a supposition but a fact. It's also the driving force behind many people and countries claiming that internet access is or should be a basic right. The only people who could afford to completely cut out their internet activity are those who are not reliant on an outside source to provide income ie... retirees and dependents and those are usually minors. Of course that shouldn't stop us from demanding our government do what we the voters want. Unfortunately you simply will not get a society as complacent/immediate satisfaction as ours to be as engaged as they should be.
The aim is twofold: 1. Get net neutrality back, and 2. If the vote doesn't pass because of Republican opposition, it will be on public record that those Republican reps and senators voted against MASSIVE public opinion. This is a Congressional election year (this November), so the weight of this vote is huge.
I hate partisan politics, and I prefer independent candidates and platforms, but I can't help but get behind the Dems on this one.
.
It's page one of the political rule book. You must either support net neutrality or you're against good internet. You must approve of Obama's presidency or you're racist. You must support mass immigration or you hate mexicans and Muslims. You must activly support gay marriage or you're a homophobe.
.
Their play is to emotionally appeal to what feels good and paint the picture that if you dont buy in, you must be the extreme opposite.
Its all propiganda.
.
I would argue that politicians are very aware of how untrustworthy the public believes them to be. But they're very smart and very wealthy. It's easy for them to buy people in white coats to make charts and graphs that tell whatever story they need it to. I would place climate change at the center of this concept too.
.
Also, the scientific community itselfe is'nt in agreement. Since the 70's there have been countless studies and papers written about temperatures rising and falling. The scientific community has predicted all kinds of future models that they have associated with human activity.
As to the second point... by that token we shouldn't trust anything that we hear or read, ever. There will always be disagreements, exceptions in data, wrong conclusions drawn out of improbable correlations. We can't discard the majority of results which produce consistent theories though, else we'd all be pre-Socratic Relativists.
And for any who use the "it's happened before" line in reference to natural heating and cooling of the Earth, I'd invite you to look at this timeline: https://xkcd.com/1732/
You don't even need to read all of it, just scroll and watch the line. But do slow down near the end.
.
Questionable data + computer model assumptions + biased display = an agenda of some kind.
.
And then comes the emotional appeal that i must be a bad person if i dont believe in epidemic climate change (think of the poor polar bears). Then i know its BS.
.
I know you posted after my last one but this is a perfect example of what i was talking about. Temperature measurements that could never be truely know (assumptions). A graph of stretched out numbers to establish a norm with a small degree change at the bottom and massive assumed curve at the end. All of it solidified with emotional statements of doom and gloom if we dont stop everything were doing.
We can't go back in time to measure the temperature, so we'll never have the precision that we could have for the temperature today. This I won't and can't deny. However, these reconstructions are based off of reliable mathematical models and would never have been used to even try this if the scientists behind the papers didn't have enough reliable data to use the model to calculate a result with reasonable accuracy and precision.
Also, best way to avoid those biased graphs (which I will admit the one I showed is towards the end, but it's the best understandable example of the point that I have) is to go to the papers themselves, see if you can understand what they have there.
.....if i believed them. But i believe that it's highly politicized to the point that in 2006 Al Gore says the world will end in 10 years when the last time I checked it's exactly the same or even a bit cooler.
.
Kamatsu, we dont and cant know for sure the accuracies of those models but I assume it's roughly the same accuracy of the model Al Gore used in 2006. Also, did you see the little side note on that chart at 16000bc that says "limits of this data"? Why should those 1 deg C sharp changes be ignored while the 1 degC change that started in the 20th century is the end of the world as we know it? This whole graph is built to manipulate the reader into thinking it's worse than it is. Ic global warming is so bad, why is there such a need to skew the data and perception?
Besides, even if climate change wasn't a thing, what's wrong with being eco-friendly anyway?
Eco-friendliness is only a problem when someone else is making that decision for others.
.
Should we take care of the only world we have?? Unconditionally yes!
.
It's when an exagerated man-caused negative change in climate is blamed on corperations when it really bothers me. People will buy the newest iphone before they pay rent and use it to blog about how much polution the truck that delivered it to their door makes. They'll sit in their soaking bath, in their warm apartment and dream up protest marches on the natural gas pipeline expansion that will continue to deliver their comfort.
.
And the ONLY reason they have this skewed paradigm is because a bunch of politicians need their vote to stay in power and theres a lot more eco-minded, compasionate voters than there are corporate shareholders and CEOs.
.
It's an illusion. But if you point out the illusion, you must be an earth hater.
But are people who talk about environmental protection while being wasteful huge hypocrites? Abso-fucking-lutely. Posting about being eco-friendly while driving alone in a car with your newly bought watter bottle that you'll throw away at the end of the day, your new phone that you bought just because the old one was getting a bit slow and new clothes because the old ones are out of style now? Whoever does that can fuck off. I'm legit trying to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle only to have the idea ruined by pretentious assholes.
Also, why the fuck aren't we investing in hemp plastics yet?
.
I think there's a lot off opportunity for most meaple to learn more about how and why corperations work. Everyone envisions old fat white guys sitting in a Scrooge mc duck silo of money choosing another gold coin over a dieing polar bear.
.
Depending on the type of business, most companies struggle to maintain 25% net to gross profit margin. What people obsess about is how much more 25% of a $50M company is than what they make. What they dont think about is the risk involved. Nobody would ever start a company and expose themselves to that much risk if there werent a substantial reward if it works. No reward, no risk, no iphones.
.
Unreasonable enviromental tax on a company will hurt its profitability. Diminished profit hurts the consumers , employees, and share holders.
.
Thats why it's so important to be realistic about where we sit enviromentaly, so we can proceed accordingly instead of reacting to political propiganda.