CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Aug 25, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 04:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 21:31

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

James Baud posted:

On the other hand, the Taiping Rebellion...

Even factoring in the Taiping Rebellion, the 20th century still accounts for more battle deaths than the rest of history combined, which should give you a sense of how bloody a century it was. I think this used to be better understood but as it recedes into history people are losing perspective on how unprecedentedly bloody the last century was.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 04:29

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

I'd probably take 1960 over 1860 tho

# ? Mar 28, 2018 04:35

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Aug 25, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 04:41

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

James Baud posted:

I think percentage terms are more appropriate than raw bodycount when contemplating such things because really, that's the odds facing you were you to go back. The twentieth century population boom otherwise renders everything before it moot by default.

(I feel like some earlier Chinese war is speculated as having killed something like a sixth of the global population, but that may be an artifact of them having credible census data and everything in the Americas being a complete mystery.)

If we look at deaths per hundred thousands then the death toll of the 20th century increased by roughly two thirds over the nineteenth century. I'm using the same source that I referred to earlier.

This is all highly conjectural but so far as I know scholars are unanimous in seeing the 20th century as vastly surpassing all other eras as the bloodiest in history. It's as though a Taiping rebellion scale event occurred somewhere in the world at least once every decade or two for an entire century.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:00

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Helsing posted:

For me the issue isn't the fear of dying in war as a solider, it's the fear of seeing my entire community get slaughtered or scattered to the four winds.

Well, that's a weird metric. 1800s wins in that case because your birth and child mortality is so high you have a pretty good chance of just dying of health problems before you have to see that. If I was gambling and I had to bet the devil on which fetus would have a better chance of not seeing their community slaughtered/scattered, my money would definitely go to 1800s or earlier if he'd let me, your maternal, infant and child outcomes were so terrible.

I think your selection criteria sucks though, if you embrace biotruths and take life expectancy and odds of having some viable offspring who also have decent odds themselves, 1913 is the choice. I think there's people really good with history here though, I'd love to hear their 1813 vs 1913 choice and why.

I won't argue at all that 1900s was by far the bloodiest century especially in raw numbers but even your chart has it at 44 war deaths/1000 pop vs 16 war deaths/1000 pop the century before. Which I admit is much higher, call it 3 times higher. And I admitted earlier that that was capitalism's fault, we had never had so many imaginary resources to focus on destruction.

But looking at overall odds, I'll pick 44/1000 over 16/1000 war odds if it comes with much better health outcomes. Even in the 1900s, you were way more likely to die from diarrhea than war because nature has always been a much more efficient albeit faceless killer which is why we must continue our war against nature and stamp out malaria, vaccinable diseases and heart disease by investing our capitalism profits into people, technology and evidence based research.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:02

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

That's a good start; this century, let's make it 100% :evilbuddy:

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:02

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Amazing, if only there were some way to fund research that wasn't purely a side effect or in aid of ever increasing concentration of capital.

'Tis a shame really. Just those darn logistical issues, I expect.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 28, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:10

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Aug 25, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:51

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Well, that's a weird metric. 1800s wins in that case because your birth and child mortality is so high you have a pretty good chance of just dying of health problems before you have to see that. If I was gambling and I had to bet the devil on which fetus would have a better chance of not seeing their community slaughtered/scattered, my money would definitely go to 1800s or earlier if he'd let me, your maternal, infant and child outcomes were so terrible.

I think your selection criteria sucks though, if you embrace biotruths and take life expectancy and odds of having some viable offspring who also have decent odds themselves, 1913 is the choice. I think there's people really good with history here though, I'd love to hear their 1813 vs 1913 choice and why.

I won't argue at all that 1900s was by far the bloodiest century especially in raw numbers but even your chart has it at 44 war deaths/1000 pop vs 16 war deaths/1000 pop the century before. Which I admit is much higher, call it 3 times higher. And I admitted earlier that that was capitalism's fault, we had never had so many imaginary resources to focus on destruction.

But looking at overall odds, I'll pick 44/1000 over 16/1000 war odds if it comes with much better health outcomes. Even in the 1900s, you were way more likely to die from diarrhea than war because nature has always been a much more efficient albeit faceless killer which is why we must continue our war against nature and stamp out malaria, vaccinable diseases and heart disease by investing our capitalism profits into people, technology and evidence based research.

The better health outcomes are actually pretty exaggerated from a global standpoint. Using this chart: In 1820 the chance that you'll live past 5 is about 57%. A hundred years later in 1920 it's 67%.

You're only 10 percent less likely to die before reaching the age of five but three times more likely to die in a war. And if you avoid death in a war you still have a high statistical probability of living through decades of violent turmoil and ethnic strife.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 05:51

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

James Baud posted:

I'd dispute the "vastly" ratio since generally accepted conservative war death totals for the 19th century are about double what that table has, nevermind wilder estimates. (See 'Taiping Rebellion', again). This chart shows war death rates/population as a rolling 15 year average and theoretically updates the population more often than 'once, mid-century'. 20th century is perhaps a bit higher, but the rate nosedives in the later decades because of population growth and we know that trendline continued.

e: Note that the Y-axis *is* exponential, so a little difference is bigger than it looks. This cuts both ways.

I think that just about every conventional historical account on this topic would more or less describe the 20th century as vastly more brutal than past centuries, but either way I will have to looked for something more authoritative than the first scholarly looking article I found on google. You've piqued my curiosity regarding the historiography of counting battle deaths in the modern era is.

As per the thought experiment, however, I think my general point stands. The chance of a violent death is higher and your chance of dying as an infant are only slightly lower if you choose to be born in 1913 rather than 1813.

If we're talking late 20th century onward then yeah, there's no contest. But in 1913 it's a different picture, at least from a global perspective.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 06:11

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Yeah but it's three times a really small number. Like, if you could take aspirin daily to lower your chance of fatal cancer from 43% to 33% but that will triple your odds of getting fatal heart disease from 1.6% to 4.4%. You're better off with the aspirin. But add on way more health benefits for you and your kids with little other downside.

E. Also, choosing 1800 still means your kids' kids get your nightmarish 1900s, why risk both

Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Mar 28, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 06:13

thehoodie: Feb 8, 2011; "Eat something made with love and joy - and be forgiven"

This is a super interesting and informative conversation that I don't really understand the point of.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 06:44

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Well, start with the assumption that capitalism is directly and perhaps solely responsible for all technological innovation in every field in the last century and a half, then argue over whether or not the massive deaths that maybe can be associated with capitalism and the externalities thereof outweigh the lives saved due to improved access to medicine and other technology, then um, decide whether capitalism is the last word in improving the human condition or if maybe we ought to look for something better.

I think.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 07:13

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Aug 25, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 07:20

Kly: Aug 8, 2003

the rich

# ? Mar 28, 2018 07:57

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Yeah but it's three times a really small number. Like, if you could take aspirin daily to lower your chance of fatal cancer from 43% to 33% but that will triple your odds of getting fatal heart disease from 1.6% to 4.4%. You're better off with the aspirin. But add on way more health benefits for you and your kids with little other downside.

E. Also, choosing 1800 still means your kids' kids get your nightmarish 1900s, why risk both

I'm using battle fatalities to establish a general principle about the violence of the 20th century, sort of like how a criminologist uses the murder rate to get a general gauge of violence in a given region. And much in the way that Baltimore's high annual murder rate is a big indicator of other problems, we can also say that the threefold rise in casualties only scratches the surface of how bad the 20th century was.

I also think you are weighing the advantage of material comforts too heavily while ignoring how much it would suck to be caught up in a genocide, revolution or major 20th century war.

thehoodie posted:

This is a super interesting and informative conversation that I don't really understand the point of.

I honestly just think it's a silly way to talk about the evolution of global statistics like battle deaths per hundred thousand or infant mortality.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 13:29

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Helsing posted:

I honestly just think it's a silly way to talk about the evolution of global statistics like battle deaths per hundred thousand or infant mortality.

It's a good way to give your inner McNamara a stretch.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 13:44

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

For anyone who was interested in my argument about the carbon bubble and the inherent difficulties of creating a sustainable future under capitalism because powerful capitalist elites have vested interests in not transitioning away from carbon fuels, here's a very interesting article:

quote:

'Extreme' fossil fuel investments have surged under Donald Trump, report reveals
Sharp rise globally in the dirtiest fossil fuel investments reverses progress made after the Paris agreement, with tar sands holdings more than doubling in Trump�s first year in office

Bank holdings in �extreme� fossil fuels skyrocketed globally to $115bn during Donald Trump�s first year as US president, with holdings in tar sands oil more than doubling, a new report has found.

A sharp flight from fossil fuels investments after the Paris agreement was reversed last year with a return to energy sources dubbed �extreme� because of their contribution to global emissions. This included an 11% hike in funding for carbon-heavy tar sands, as well as Arctic and ultra-deepwater oil and coal.

US and Canadian banks led a race back into the unconventional energy sector following Trump�s promise to withdraw from Paris, with JPMorgan Chase increasing its coal funding by a factor of 21, and quadrupling its tar sands assets.

Chase�s $5.6bn surge in tar sands holdings added to nearly $47bn of gains for the industry last year, according to the report by NGOs including BankTrack, the Sierra Club and Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

RAN spokeswoman, Alison Kirsch, accused banks such as JPMorgan Chase of �moving backwards in lockstep with their wrongheaded political leaders�.

�If we are to have any chance of halting catastrophic climate change, there must be an end of expansion and complete phase-out of these dangerous energy sources,� she said. �Banks need to be accountable and implement policies guarding against extreme fossil fuel funding.�

JPMorgan Chase has asked the US securities and exchanges commission for support in its bid to block a shareholder resolution calling for a bank report on financial and climate risks associated with tar sands projects.

Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto Dominion remain the biggest tar sands backers, with $38bn of holdings between them.

Kelly Martin, a campaign director at Sierra Club, said: �Tar sands and other fossil fuel projects threaten our climate, public health, and communities, and until they stop supporting them financially, major banks � are complicit in this destruction.�

The bulk of new �extreme� investments came in a doubling of loans and bonds to Canada�s government-backed tar sands industry, even though its success would be disastrous for climate mitigation efforts, according to the former Nasa chief James Hansen.

Bank funding for tar sands production and pipelines more than doubled last year � compared to the 2015-16 period, when then-US president Barack Obama nixed the Keystone pipeline project, which Trump subsequently reapproved.

Support for coal among the 36 banks surveyed was also up by 6% in 2017 after a 38% plunge in 2016. Large Chinese banks actually reduced these investments last year and in Europe, BNP Paribas and ING moved to limit their exposure to fossil fuel assets.

However, 14 European banks collectively increased their coal financing by more than $2bn last year, with HSBC the worst performer by far.

�Europe�s top banks have got to stop their coal-focused assault on the Paris agreement,� said Johan Frijns, the director of BankTrack. �It is now vital that they move to stamp out their financial support for companies developing new coal-fired power plants around the world.�

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/28/extreme-fossil-fuel-investments-have-surged-under-donald-trump-report-reveals

Theoretically, capitalism could lead to far-sighted corporate leaders saying "well, we'll make the most profit in the long run by transitioning to fuels that won't kill us all". In practice, it means that the US elects a bilionaire president who appoints the CEO of Exxon as his first Secretary of State, and investment banks spin right back to investing their money in the dirtiest, most environmentally damaging fuels known to man, because the short-term profits of a presidential cycle matter more than humanity's survival.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 13:56

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

I just think it's refreshing that for once this thread isn't acting like all of this countries and possibly the worlds ills could be solved by getting rurals to stop being rurals and racists to stop being racists while ignoring the current global conditions brought on by failing to reign in the capitalist class and it's current obsession with neoliberalism and technofetishism that most people here are indirectly and in some instances directly benefiting from.

I mean, I admit that in it's current form 'rural living' might not be sustainable, and there is no doubt in my mind getting racists to not be racist would be a gigantic improvement in our society, but still, I honestly think that for some people the woke bae thing is just a way for bourgeois parasites to deflect guilt.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:02

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The funny thing is that the classic Marxian analysis of capitalism and the profit movie celebrates these things as the engines of the industrial revolution. The trouble is that forces that were progressive in one time period become a check on progress later on. The challenges that face us in the 21st century may require different solutions than the kind of raw wealth creating power of capitalism. So it's not as though the left historically disputed the role of capitalism in birthing modernity, it just recognized a series of developmental stages that it though required different sets of policies and different economic forms.

After all, let's not forget that the single largest act of private property creation in the whole 20th century may have been Mao giving the Chinese peasantry their own plots of land. Or take Russia, which industrialized well ahead of other feudal peasant based empires and then evolved into a gangster capitalist state. You could argue the greatest material accomplishment of really existing socialism was to drag the most agrarian regions of the world into the modern world system via breakneck state lead development of industry.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:18

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

Someone redo this comic so it starts with two white guys, one in a top hat and the other wearing rags, the one in the top hat gives the white guy in rags a billy club and says 'keep the black guy in line and I'll let you eat my table scraps' and then after climbing up when the black guy is asking for help the white guy on top just drowns him out by pointing at the white guy on the bottom with the billy club and going 'OH MY GOD THAT GUY IS RACIST LOOK HE'S A RACIST OH MY GOD RACIST sorry I can't help you I'm too busy being mad at that RACIST'

Edit: oh hell or instead replace the top hat with a righteous flow, make the black guy First Nations, and in the last panel have the dude on top ask if the first nations guy wants a boat house.

Then it becomes Trudeau's First Term - The Comic

EvilJoven fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 28, 2018

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:33

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Jesus gently caress, you have a massive chip on your shoulder.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:49

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

PT6A posted:

Jesus gently caress, you have a massive chip on your shoulder.

Sorry if that upsets you. I bet if you look in your top hat there's a little hanky for you to cry in.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:53

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

EvilJoven posted:

Sorry if that upsets you. I bet if you look in your top hat there's a little hanky for you to cry in.

Go for a bike ride or something man burn off some of that angry.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 14:57

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

JFC. Almost made it three pages without :qq:

rural whites have it hard too you know, people keep calling them racist :qq:

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:02

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

And again we see the "economic anxieties" of the "white working class" manifested by a dude who is qualified for white-collar work and owns a house, complaining tirelessly about his poo poo lot in life.

"I mean, sure my ancestors stood by profited off exploitation of others as they fought for basic human rights, but I'VE HAD IT PRETTY loving HARD TOO! Sometimes I had to touch computers for upwards of 8 hours a day, only half of which could be spent shitposting!" :qq:

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:04

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

I'm headed to my cottage in Bancroft this weekend. over/under on the number of pickups with confederate flags I'll see?

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:04

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

MA-Horus posted:

I'm headed to my cottage in Bancroft this weekend. over/under on the number of pickups with confederate flags I'll see?

Hopefully the path of confederate flags will lead you directly to the guillotine, cottage-haver! :smuggo:

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:05

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

MA-Horus posted:

I'm headed to my cottage in Bancroft this weekend. over/under on the number of pickups with confederate flags I'll see?

I've got some friends out in Madoc. It's usually under three, but this is a long weekend so I'll say five.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:07

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

PT6A posted:

And again we see the "economic anxieties" of the "white working class" manifested by a dude who is qualified for white-collar work and owns a house, complaining tirelessly about his poo poo lot in life.

"I mean, sure my ancestors stood by profited off exploitation of others as they fought for basic human rights, but I'VE HAD IT PRETTY loving HARD TOO! Sometimes I had to touch computers for upwards of 8 hours a day, only half of which could be spent shitposting!"

Yeah but now he�s working class.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:08

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Jesus the CBC News website has become incredibly lovely and they are doubling down on it. Where do you all go for good Canadian news coverage?

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:09

cougar cub: Jun 28, 2004

I don�t get the boat house comment / reference

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:11

TheKingofSprings: Oct 9, 2012

Arivia posted:

Jesus the CBC News website has become incredibly lovely and they are doubling down on it. Where do you all go for good Canadian news coverage?

You�re posting in it

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:12

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Arivia posted:

Jesus the CBC News website has become incredibly lovely and they are doubling down on it. Where do you all go for good Canadian news coverage?

The redesign is a lot better though?

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:13

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Arivia posted:

Jesus the CBC News website has become incredibly lovely and they are doubling down on it. Where do you all go for good Canadian news coverage?

Use an online RSS service like feedly

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:14

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

CLAM DOWN posted:

The redesign is a lot better though?

I can see maybe half as much content at once and that�s when I�m not wading through a newsletter signup form that takes up an entire screen on my phone. The information density - the thing I am specifically expecting from a news site - has just cratered.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:18

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

When is Doug releasing the teach me how to dougie viral video

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:44

Eox: Jun 20, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Never, teachers are union scum and learning should take place in the home

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 21:31

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

The Toronto Star and The Tyee usually have better and more interesting content if you can tolerate the Ontario/BC bias.

# ? Mar 28, 2018 15:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »