|
Looking forward to next time I get to fix what's wrong by the power of my VOTE.
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
The Danish Social Democrats are going to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:Unionen has long been characterised as a very... centrist union. Early on when SD started to become a thing on the national level they were the only union that did not ban SD members from holding union positions. They also invest in and are generally amenable towards temp agencies (which is a big a sticking point for many other unions). So basically they are seen as milquetoast pragmatists and/or traitors to the cause, depending on your perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
It’s sad to see every party running wild trying to outflank each other on treating asylum seekers the worst in order to entice SD voters, when SD voters won’t be happy until we treat asylum seekers like Israel treats Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Yeah, you can’t win a bidding war in being the most racist when you’re bidding with literal fascists. They’ll just one-up you every time and those votes will always vote for what’s worse for the current fear du jour ethnicity/culture.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:It’s sad to see every party running wild trying to outflank each other on treating asylum seekers the worst in order to entice SD voters, when SD voters won’t be happy until we treat asylum seekers like Israel treats Palestinians. If we get to that point they'll just move the goal to a Final Solution. The other parties can not win the racist race.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Yeah, you can’t win a bidding war in being the most racist when you’re bidding with literal fascists. They’ll just one-up you every time and those votes will always vote for what’s worse for the current fear du jour ethnicity/culture. See also: Dansk Folkeparti going back on the polls because they have been outracisted by Nye Borgerlige. I guess this means that DF is approaching racist centrism?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Things gonna get real ugly once climate disasters displace billions of people from the third world, making 2015 look like a breeze in comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:Things gonna get real ugly once climate disasters displace billions of people from the third world, making 2015 look like a breeze in comparison. yeah i worry that that's probably the point where we install actual machine guns at the border
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
What do you think all this is in preparation for? Even with mitigations (which aren't happening), there's gonna be over a billion climate refugees in the next 30 years, not counting whatever resource wars crop up in the meantime. They know it's too late to act meaningfully. Death they can handle, though. There are vast crimes against humanity happening in service of this system as we speak, it's just a matter of scale.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
It’s funny (re: sad) to see when SVT publishes a report on new climate research on their Facebook page. There’s a lot of comments bemoaning that they’re only reporting “one side of the issue”, and not scoops from pseudoscienctists who claim that burning coal is good because that means there’s less of it around or whatever the gently caress. The greatest criminals in modern time are the lobbyists working for fossil fuel industries, regurgitating the talking points that is immediately adopted by alt-right fuckwits.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Like 15+ years ago, when I was a wee lad, I remember being saying that at least when the climate catastrophe really came, we knew exactly were to put the blame. As much as its ever possible to say that it’s one particular persons fault, we had our villain. Bjorn Lomborg. No one in the entire world has probably done more to ensure that nothing serious was done about climate change. His ‘reasonable serious scientist’ act gave discursive cover/shelter to basically every government on the planet, with such gems as ‘the cold kills more people in Europe anyway, so warming is not a problem’ and so on. Once the US modelled their climate policies and response on his amateurish hack analysis, it was all over. I believe several governments are still throwing money at him.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
it's not just climate either; i superficially follow some ecology and biodiversity journals and we're getting to the point where statements like "fundamental socioeconomic changes are necessary" are seeping into peer-reviewed scientific papers, which is an incredibly bad sign
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
the main reason i'm a communist and not just a mainline left-social democrat is because i simply cannot see any way to ally the 4% stable return on investment (which seems remarkably stable throughout capitalist history, re: piketty's book) with anything like sustainable biological systems and a society which is remotely equitable in the moderate term. it does not seem possible to avoid either overconcentration of wealth and thus a collapse of bourgeois democracy or total ecological collapse this is prior to getting into heterodox marxian stuff, it's just a simple observation that we can either have greater than 4% annual growth in consumption (obviously not sustainable) or exponentially increasing concentration of wealth (obviously not sustainable) under capitalism
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
A good friend of mine has always had an ultra-libertarian laissez-faire approach to absolutely everything. Member of Venstres Ungdom and all that back ine 90s/00s. But at the same time he's a physicist and can understand the math behind climate change so lately he's in the unique position of trying to decide whether to vote for Enhedslisten or Liberal Alliance. It's fascinating to observe from the outside. Also he was an early adopter of Bitcoin and now SKAT is bending him over a barrel for "speculation" in something he initially acquired as a joke back when one bitcoin might pay for half a restaurant meal if you could get a buddy to pick up the tab and accept digital monopoly money as payment. I feel bad for him but I can't deny there's an element of schadenfreude after all those years of having to listen to him extol the virtues of cryptocurrency... jeebus bob fucked around with this message at 09:24 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:What's the punchiest union in Sweden, then? I looked briefly at the Syndicalists, and they sounded like they were up for a fight, but they don't seem to have much weight to throw around. Syndikalisterna go out and make a fuss when employers are lovely. A restaurant in my neighbourhood was blockaded by syndicalists protesting and handing out pamphlets etc. when the owner didn't pay a serving staff wages that they were due. On the other hand, you might be the only member at your workplace, which limits your collective bargaining. So I think you're most likely to find the most punchiest among some of the LO members. Seko has fought and won some good fights regarding public transportation too. As for the lame duck union list I'd nominate Saco-s.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 11:00
|
|
|
Syndikalisterna are great if: A) Your not afraid being blacklisted (if you're not worried about this it's not a thing in your industry, you'd know) B) Your workplace has no other union represented already, as unions are more than ever a monopoly affair Largely you want to be in the union that holds the collective bargaining right at your workplace. And if there are multiple, then you want it to be the one that gives a gently caress about you because others might make a point of not. If you don't care then just join w/e union you prefer the terms of, just be aware they might not be on your side if things go to court and you're not in their industry. Most unions are lame-ducks these days. Don't expect too much.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Like 15+ years ago, when I was a wee lad, I remember being saying that at least when the climate catastrophe really came, we knew exactly were to put the blame. As much as its ever possible to say that it’s one particular persons fault, we had our villain. Bjorn Lomborg. I don't want to undercut Lomborg's villainy, but he's just a more publicity-hungry version of those who came before. Before him, US policy was based on the work of one Fred Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded solely to get funding for bogus research to throw at the then-recent IPCC. Before that, he did research to allow Reagan and Bush Sr. to claim that acid rain/ozone depletion also were not climate crises, and before that he did research for tobacco companies to claim that there was no conclusive evidence that they gave people cancer. Tobacco CEOs knew they were giving people cancer for like 50 years before governments accepted it as fact, because Singer and his compatriots gave them enough plausible deniability that legislators could be bribed to pretend otherwise. Lomborg is just walking in their footsteps. If he hadn't been around, Anders Fogh and Scott Morrison and whoever else are paying him would have found someone else to "advise" them to gently caress the earth. It's not like they could find anyone with fewer credentials; Singer et al. were at least actual scientists.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 12:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it's not just climate either; i superficially follow some ecology and biodiversity journals and we're getting to the point where statements like "fundamental socioeconomic changes are necessary" are seeping into peer-reviewed scientific papers, which is an incredibly bad sign Yeah, the idea of climate change causing large ecological problems is still thought of as far off or even contentious in the mainstream. But if you read ecology papers they'll just reference die-offs and population shifts in the introduction to set context, because they've already been recording and measuring them happening for decades. If you're not prepared for that it can be quite shocking to read about massive ecosystem collapses not as a new and astonishing finding, but just as part of the well established background to what the paper is actually about. Most scientists don't like to write policy suggestions into their papers for fear of being accused of bias, but I do feel like you see it more often these days. I'm in favour tbh because a bias on the side of "not killing the majority of higher organisms on the planet" is something I think we should be able to stand behind.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I don't want to undercut Lomborg's villainy, but he's just a more publicity-hungry version of those who came before. Before him, US policy was based on the work of one Fred Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded solely to get funding for bogus research to throw at the then-recent IPCC. Before that, he did research to allow Reagan and Bush Sr. to claim that acid rain/ozone depletion also were not climate crises, and before that he did research for tobacco companies to claim that there was no conclusive evidence that they gave people cancer. Tobacco CEOs knew they were giving people cancer for like 50 years before governments accepted it as fact, because Singer and his compatriots gave them enough plausible deniability that legislators could be bribed to pretend otherwise. Yeah, you’re right of course. I was very involved in an international climate organisation at the time, and I do feel like Lomborg was the one who made being a climate sceptic a mainstream position. It’s less about his credentials, but he had more charisma than most of the boring suits and he was one of the first to very credibly pretend to actually care tremendously about the environment. That is, the pretence of taking climate change seriously, and then convincing the every-man that we didn’t need to do anything about it because that the: “oh so complex, don’t worry your little head about it, economic incentives”, would take care of it. Certainly in Denmark that was his role, Bush wholesale copying that approach to his policy made resistance extremely hard.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
That's a fair point; I only started noticing how little governments and a distressing amount of the public cared about the climate after he'd insinuated himself, and I just kind of assumed it had always been thus and I'd just never noticed before. Y'know in the same way people say that right-wing governments used to have sound economic policy, or that the second-to-latest repblican president was a stand-up chap; things weren't good, it's just been long enough that we can pretend. It's possible that Lomborg being stupid/mercenary enough to claim he actually does care about the environment and is suggesting policy based on the scientific consensus, rather than railing against it, has done a degree of harm his predecessors haven't. I'll take your word for it, as a person who was involved at the time. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Yeah, the idea of climate change causing large ecological problems is still thought of as far off or even contentious in the mainstream. But if you read ecology papers they'll just reference die-offs and population shifts in the introduction to set context, because they've already been recording and measuring them happening for decades. If you're not prepared for that it can be quite shocking to read about massive ecosystem collapses not as a new and astonishing finding, but just as part of the well established background to what the paper is actually about. Most scientists don't like to write policy suggestions into their papers for fear of being accused of bias, but I do feel like you see it more often these days. I'm in favour tbh because a bias on the side of "not killing the majority of higher organisms on the planet" is something I think we should be able to stand behind. it's a reasonable thing to write in the field because there's no other reasonable interpretation of the data, which is itself an incredibly bad sign like, if "we need to do X" makes its way into actual, peer-reviewed science it's a pretty serious thing. when "X" is basically "fundamentally realign society" it's an extraordinary indictment of where we're at, because these people feel obligated to make a politically very radical statement in a piece of writing which has to pass through filters where speculation is seen as a serious weakness and people you don't know are going to involved in reviewing it
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
I'll just dump this here, since it's paywalled at Aftenposten and I didn't find another source:quote:Frp programfester sin klimaskepsis og krever mer forskning på om naturlige prosesser kan være årsak til klimaendringene. So yeah Frp. Still the political embodiment of every uninformed but strongly held opinion on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
It's just baffling that they're still whipping the dead horse that is climate change denialism. Nobody in Norway, except a few old men, believes that climate change is just caused by natural processes. It's why MDG has had the success they have had. Being against the UN climate panel is the best way to remain an obscure party.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 15:14
|
|
|
I'd love to agree, but Frp isn't really that obscure.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:I'd love to agree, but Frp isn't really that obscure. They will be if they keep on with politics that are deeply unpopular. Right now they might not even get into parliament next election.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:They will be if they keep on with politics that are deeply unpopular. Right now they might not even get into parliament next election. Where are you seeing that? FrP is far from what they once were, but there aren't any indications that what you're saying in your second sentence is close to true.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
I speculate that Frp has a floor of about 8%, consisting of chuds, "immigration sceptics" and quiet-word-loud outright SIAN racists that don't have anywhere else to go.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Where are you seeing that? FrP is far from what they once were, but there aren't any indications that what you're saying in your second sentence is close to true.  But they are losing a bunch of voters because people aren't worried about immigration but they are worried about climate changes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
FrP is the fourth largest party in Norway and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future. The fact that their policies are grifts doesn't really change that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't really expect SV to pass them or Sp to dive below them anytime soon. Still, there is a difference between the "toying with the large parties" 20% they have been at and the "best of the bottom" 10% they are at now. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
frp will remain so long as middle-aged men who work in smaller businesses are a factor of norwegian politics, which is to say that they're not going away anytime soon they're in decline, though - they've lost a lot of credibility on old winners like elderly care and transport (ketil solvik-olsen might be the single worst politician in solberg's government if you discount the justice ministers, at least relative to the heft of his department) and they only really have reflexive anti-social-democrat libertarianism and the culture war left. so now they've got to toe a very difficult line between going too soft and losing their appeal to the "national conservative" tendency and going too strong and becoming the exclusive domain of insane sixty-year-olds who spend their days rotting their brains on youtube, especially since their brand of thatcherite freedom through self-actualisation is showing its flaws it's also difficult to see where they can turn to expand their base again. they could try to pivot to a more economically interventionist doctrine like SD or DF, but that would cause a lot of trauma among their party cadres, including quite highly placed people like solvik-olsen - and listhaug, even! note how despite all her culture war bullshit she has been extremely disciplined on the economic libertarian side of things. this is because she's not actually an organic politician but a public relations representative employed to shore up some level of popular support for a project entirely beholden to the very biggest capital interests in the country. in norway, about 10% of the voters are climate denialists. this number is disproportionately high in FrP. if they can monopolise that (extremely unpopular) position, they've likely got a solid floor of 8-10%, to which they can add "muslims are scary", "janteloven sucks i am a randian superman" and "i like driving cars" if they ever rebuild their credibility on that point which would bring them back up to 15-20%. it's extremely difficult to conceive of a solbergian H dropping beneath a listhaug-led FrP, but the latter can certainly force themselves into any H-led government
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
if krf actually dies a fair amount of their support in the low-church congregations remaining in (especially) the south and west would probably also go to FrP, and that's a well-organised and active group of voters which could genuinely be a force multiplier for the party in those areas
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
Also a dying bread, mind you- even in the south. But they will hang around long enough to matter. Of course, with those you have the problem of not being religiously radical enough; these are people that had real leaks from Krf to minor even-more-christian parties. I believe Partiet De Kristne has a handful of local positions in (former) Vest-Agder? Also, Aftenposten has done some heavy lifting and counted emoji responses on Facebook to posts by Siv Jensen and Sylvi Listhaug.: Siv first: an undertone of anger, but mostly hearts.  Sylvi, on the other hand, is really riding the "down with that sort of thing" wave:  Which is probably a planned strategy. I can't help but see her as ... not Trumpian, but in that sphere of whipping up anger and hate behind a shield of Good National Christian Values.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Yeah, I don't really expect SV to pass them or Sp to dive below them anytime soon. Still, there is a difference between the "toying with the large parties" 20% they have been at and the "best of the bottom" 10% they are at now. V is teetering on the brink of death lmao. Good riddance to them I guess
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Venomous posted:V is teetering on the brink of death lmao. Good riddance to them I guess reminder that V had four cabinet ministers based off their two-strong parliamentary delegation in Bondevik 2 V's natural state is a horrified glaring at sperregrensen and has been for as long as i've been following politics. MDG's rise might finally finish them off, but i wouldn't count on it
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Høyre has votes to spare for tactically keeping Venste over the limit, and the Venstre voters who are upset at the direction of the party will probably vote "against their conscience" if early polling show them in danger. I hope they eat poo poo, but I'll take the pessimistic view until proven otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
Venomous posted:V is teetering on the brink of death lmao. Good riddance to them I guess I'm just mildly entertained by R being larger than Krf.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Boy Ekot/SR kinda stepped in it didn’t they?
Dirk Pitt fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:Boy Ekot/SR kinda stepped in it didn’t they? First weak rear end non-handling of the scandal, then trying to hide/downplay it and now the pants are all the way down. Way to go public broadcast!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 08:17
|
|