|
TinTower posted:In the 2004 presidential election, $127 was spent on ad-buys in Texas. That's surprising, you figure the campaigns would have spent some in El Paso, since that media market extends into New Mexico.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, it only seems like a negative because we've gotten trapped in the illusion that our current climate is optimal. Yeah, besides, it's gonna take like 100,000 years to go full venus. we'll probably all shoot each other before then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Turns out it's.... good! to destroy with unconcealed malice a natural order that evolved over billions of years. Humans are, after all, infallible, and life is abundant and diverse in the galaxy
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Dehumanize yourself and face to
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, it only seems like a negative because we've gotten trapped in the illusion that our current climate is optimal. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Here's a different, interactive, zoomable map of sea level rise. Notable details: A surprisingly large chunk of Los Angeles will survive even 60m of sea level rise. (And by "surprising" I mean "any at all".) The same cannot be said for my home town. Even Albany, Oregon? drat. I've heard some mention of the San Joaquin Valley becoming the San Joaquin Sea, but nothing about the Willamette Sea. Much of Florida and Louisiana will be underwater first, but the first state to be completely underwater will actually be Delaware, at 20m of sea rise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
I look forward to Florida no longer being able to sabotage the entire world single handedly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I look forward to Florida no longer being able to sabotage the entire world single handedly. Because for once the entire world will have sabotaged Florida?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Turns out it's.... good! to destroy with unconcealed malice a natural order that evolved over billions of years. Humans are, after all, infallible, and life is abundant and diverse in the galaxy Anthropogenic climate change will be disastrous for may species, humans included, but compared to the Great Dying or the Oxygen Catastrophe we're still not the high scorer among biocidal species.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Or maybe the Medea hypothesis hypothesis is right and it's natural for humans to destroy with unconcealed malice a natural order that evolved over billions of years. Humans are, after all, a part of nature, and it would be far from the first time that life has been the cause of such an effect. Wow I really missed this stuff in the Tyler Perry movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Or maybe the Medea hypothesis hypothesis is right and it's natural for humans to destroy with unconcealed malice a natural order that evolved over billions of years. Humans are, after all, a part of nature, and it would be far from the first time that life has been the cause of such an effect. We definitely are the high scorer though, unless you for some reason want to count oxygenic microbes as one species Also that's a dumb hypothesis
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Humans did it faster, whereas oxygenic and methanogenic bacteria had time to differentiate before they killed tons of species, which they do a ton quicker than multicellular life anyway. So humans get the time attack, but they still get the high scores.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Only because the latest patch is imbalanced and you get a triple score bonus for wiping out an order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
There is no order or balance in nature, it is in constant flux with species evolving and going extinct non-stop. There is nothing 'unnatural' about what is happening right now, if that word even has any meaning. Of course, that doesn't mean it's what most people would consider a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
That's a really boring argument to make, when the more crucial point is that for humans to completely ravage in a few thousand years a world that took millions of years to develop is catastrophic by definition. It's not the 14th century anymore, no one believes in some divinely ordained arrangement of things, we know that existence is chaos. That doesn't mean that the chaos itself doesn't have any virtues, or that an Earth torched by a gamma ray would be Just As Good as an Earth full of life
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
*sets own house on fire* "There's no such thing as a unnatural fire, you guys." Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
To the people who think it'll be a big improvement: you know all those assholes in Florida/dumb coastal idiots in your country? They'd all move inland, next door to you. Personally I advocate for global cooling so we can lower the sea levels and send more people to florida and away from me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:To the people who think it'll be a big improvement: you know all those assholes in Florida/dumb coastal idiots in your country? They'd all move inland, next door to you. Most of the assholes in Florida immigrated from elsewhere, so it's more like chickens coming home to roost
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:To celebrate the eminent reign of Donald J. Trump, here's the world in its full post-climate change splendor. Yes, a few people will have to move, but Germans will be able to enjoy a nice tropical beach resort without ever leaving Germany. Gonna have to go to Antarctica to go skiing though. For comparison, Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Cartoon maps are special because you get to make up whatever numbers you want. Wheee!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
40 million people have more votes than 0.6 million.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Cartoon maps are special because you get to make up whatever numbers you want. Wheee! I like the part where Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 187,000 people and California has one for every 677,000 people so their votes are 3.5x as valuable but cool map Ramirez.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:40 million people have more votes than 0.6 million.  (((***Diversity***)))
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Republicans defending the electoral college on the basis of "but what about small states" is the epitome of "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, it only seems like a negative because we've gotten trapped in the illusion that our current climate is optimal. Yeah, India becoming a desert and China's heartland being underwater will be loving great for humanity. The nuclear-armed mass migration thunderdome in East Asia is going to be great for civilization. Personally, I think the collapse of great-power peace and the beginning of a new age of war and misery is more optimal than our current stretch of peace and prosperity. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:It's not the 14th century anymore, no one believes in some divinely ordained arrangement of things, we know that existence is chaos. When was the last time you talked to soneone who wasn't an intellectual or academic type?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Republicans defending the electoral college on the basis of "but what about small states" is the epitome of "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." In TX outside of the Basically Mexico counties and Dallas/Houston/Austin/SA the GOP is so gerrymandered and entrenched that your state and us congress races and your local offices will often be either an unopposed republican or a republican in a farcical race against a green and a libertarian whose day jobs are crew leader at a grocery store. Given that a lot of the times your only possible dem vote besides POTUS is a few state-level judges, it's really almost insulting when people defend the EC. My presidential vote is the only one not suppressed by the state GOP machine but the Constitution suppresses it anyway. I know we're "solid red" but we always go 40%ish for the dem candidate, even the conserviest counties like my home will usually get about 30% dem. There are millions and millions of would-be democratic votes here that just get burnt at the altar of Ted Cruz, Tricky Dick, Dubya, and incumbent shitlord Greg Abbot. Like the most recent election Hilldawg had better margins here than in Ohio. gently caress the EC and also the dems for not dropping the hammer and calling out all the rigged GOP states. It's easy to say "they do it too!!!" but not really. Illinois is dem gerrymandered but that's basically it, the GOP has a dozen+ one party states. Otoh Cali has some of the most competitive districts in the nation and regularly sends republicans to all levels despite being only as blue as TX is red. vintagepurple fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah, India becoming a desert and China's heartland being underwater will be loving great for humanity. The nuclear-armed mass migration thunderdome in East Asia is going to be great for civilization. Personally, I think the collapse of great-power peace and the beginning of a new age of war and misery is more optimal than our current stretch of peace and prosperity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not all of India is a desert, the darker patch in the north is steppes and scrubland. Besides, it's easily made up for by the Sahara being vastly reduced, allowing the projected billions of Africans to find a nice place to live. Also, the 21st will be Canada's century as global warming unlocks our millions of acres of permafrost, and we productively settle and cultivate a mud patch that makes Siberian roads look firm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
I don't understand these discussions about what's good for nature or biodiversity or the planet or whatever the gently caress. Who really gives a poo poo? Climate change is going to majorly gently caress up how habitable this planet is for human beings as a species, that's what matters and is what the focus of discussions about that topic should be. And biodiversity and species extinctions etc matter mainly in the context of that (loving bees man). I've found that whenever pressed on this line people against 'green' policies and the like very quickly show a whole bunch of magical thinking and faith in vaguely defined 'science' or 'technology' to somehow sort all these problems out before they become real problems (read: affect them personally). Which frankly makes them look ridiculous. Especially when they were disparaging science as alarmist a minute ago. And that's how you win a political argument: make your opponent look ridiculous. If instead you start talking about the plight of polar bears to people who have actual immediate problems, guess who looks ridiculous? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
See the jagged coastlines that make every river look like a fjord on the interactive map? Don't count on it if your local river meanders through plains before pouring into the great seas, fam. Instead it'll look like a really flat salty swamp swarming with nuclear mosquitos and pounded every month with tropical storms regardless of latitude, thanks for reading.
Pinch Me Im Meming fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't understand these discussions about what's good for nature or biodiversity or the planet or whatever the gently caress. Who really gives a poo poo? Climate change is going to majorly gently caress up how habitable this planet is for human beings as a species, that's what matters and is what the focus of discussions about that topic should be. And biodiversity and species extinctions etc matter mainly in the context of that (loving bees man). You're right as such, but it's wanton cruelty towards all other living beings and the environment that's leading us to this mess, and if anyone's ever going to fix this, it's the people who care about polar bears and river dolphins, not the IT nerd who invents Super Fracking in his basement
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:You're right as such, but it's wanton cruelty towards all other living beings and the environment that's leading us to this mess, and if anyone's ever going to fix this, it's the people who care about polar bears and river dolphins, not the IT nerd who invents Super Fracking in his basement I just don't think you're going to win anything focusing on dolphins and polar bears. Talk about energy independence from Putin and the Saudis so we can give them a big fat finger, talk about the effect of air quality on people's children's health, talk about the economic costs of climate change etc. poo poo more than a bunch of white people with dreadlocks might actually care about. I mean seriously the fact that policies like that are even considered left wing or even far left is completely insane. I don't think you talk about animals unless you have a success story, preferably with a cute animal, you can relate to a policy change on the environment you took in the past so you can give people the warm fuzzie feelings about the great decisions they've made. Especially if your opponent is on the record of being against that change in policy. Because while few people give enough of a poo poo about abstract animal cruelty to do anything about it, making your opponent seem like an animal abuser in a less abstract way certainly will help. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I just don't think you're going to win anything focusing on dolphins and polar bears. Talk about energy independence from Putin and the Saudis so we can give them a big fat finger, talk about the effect of air quality on people's children's health, talk about the economic costs of climate change etc. poo poo more than a bunch of white people with dreadlocks might actually care about. I mean seriously the fact that policies like that are even considered left wing or even far left is completely insane. They aren't mutually exclusive and the requirements for keeping a species alive aren't always the same as reducing carbon emissions. And at this point its absurd to say you should only talk about animal conservation in terms of success, its nothing but punch after punch right in the face, sugercoating things is hopelessly misleading and approaches fingers-in-ears shouting I can't hear you after a while. There's also the fact that some of the most heavily polluting countries in the world can be weirdly amenable to saving those poor creatures abroad so if that gets people to do something you might as well exploit it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Mr. Belpit posted:When was the last time you talked to soneone who wasn't an intellectual or academic type? Absolutely, it's a widespread idea that nature would be in perfect harmony and balance if not for the negative impact of human activities. Also, Orange Devil is right, you need to tailor your arguments to reach people who are not already in your camp. It should be presented as a position that any rational person would agree with, which it is, and not an explicit ideological stance. That ship has sailed in the US because absolutely everything needs to be subsumed under the culture war there, but it's still potentially achievable in Europe. The problem there is that many 'green' policies and ideas are ineffective or outright counterproductive because they're motivated by sentimental or quasi-spiritual reasons (think Gaia). I'd consider voting for a green party that emphasized energy efficiency/independence and promoted genetic/tissue engineering as a means to achieve long-term sustainability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
I think to your average person, saving cute dolphins or polar bears is much more relatable than some vague concept of interstate treaties and emissions protocols.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Talk about energy independence from Putin and the Saudis so we can give them a big fat finger, Doesn't this just lead to "drill baby drill" rhetoric more often than talk of renewable energy though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
That's only an issue in countries that actually have natural resources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
 Vote on a blocking amendment to protect the UN expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity from suspension was successful by just 7 votes. Yellow abstained, black no vote, I'm sure you can guess the other two blocs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Mongolia is almost as lonely as South Africa. Great job tarnishing the Western Hemisphere’s record, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and the non‐French Guianas. Western Sahara should be coloured the same as Morocco. It’s not like the SADR has a seat in the UN, or controls anywhere close to that much territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:24
|
|