|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:You don't want to move oil by train, especially US shale oil - it's very rich in methane, which is highly combustible should there be an incident. If a pipeline is built, they still move oil by train, all that changes is that the rate at which oil can be transported increases. The "but trains are dangerous" argument is usually used disingenuously by oil companies. Maybe if you ever heard them say "if we build the pipeline, we promise to use x fewer railcars and trucks" it'd be different. They won't say that though, because they just want to dump as much product into the market as quickly as possible. tsa posted:This thread has less posts in 3 days than the militia thread had in 3 minutes. Media these days reacts to what people are talking about and not even d&d seems to care much. Time-delayed lol Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Oct 30, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
rudatron posted:All former colonial nations can and should do much more to help their dispossessed groups, and the only reason they don't is basically racism/lack of political will. But that doesn't change the fundamental reliance of modern industry on hydrocarbons, and therefore the economic necessity of things like this pipeline. My ideal end scenario has has the pipeline built and natives lives less poo poo. Making hydrocarbons incrementally cheaper through allowing private infrastructure projects only furthers a reliance on hydrocarbons extracted by private companies. Meanwhile, sending a message to those companies that they can't expect complete capitulation might force them to think switching to investing in more sustainable sources, or public decision-makers may be forced to consider more publicly-owned alternatives. Also there's plenty of history of native lives being made poo poo by private oil profiteers driving them off land in one way or another because the natives don't 'develop the land the right way,' so you might not be able to achieve that end scenario. Apologists for capital ventures heading into places where the Other lives often rely on a trope that 'savages' stand in the way of 'civilized' man's progress to violate their sovereignty.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let us all celebrate the Noble Savage who lived in harmony with the land and didn't need cell phones, vaccines, or antibiotics! Yeah, no, gently caress hunter-gatherers. It sounds like you have some ideas about native americans which might make you a bit biased about what side to take here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Maybe you should read the post I was responding to I read the post, as other people have, it just seems that you have some preexisting ideas about native americans that are getting tangled up in your view of what's happening/what other people are saying.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Okay, first off, there is no basis for comparison between the courts in any modern, developed democracy and the courts of the last Stalinist single party tolitarian dictatorship. Just to get that out of the way. Also, what happens when instead of "setting foot in a country," you remained where you were while another country set food on your land and said that its laws superseded yours?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I hope they don't own cars. And even then, while GAS PRICES is a contributor to rural hardship, I don't it's the most pressing concern for a place where the unemployment rate is 79% compared to north dakota's 3% unemployment rate, or a poverty rate around 40% "Cheap gas prices!" as some trickle down argument for working over any people opposed to nationalist supply side economics doesn't work in the face of a history of basic supply shortages in first nations. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:Threads like this make me wish wind farms didn't kill birds and stuff, so I could be all "Yeah you're right no pipelines, that's a lovely long-term investment, just build wind farms instead". drat it 100 million to 1 billion birds are killed by striking buildings every year, but no one is recommending getting rid of buildings also the "winds kill birds" talking point was popularized by people who don't actually want to follow recommendations made by bird advocacy groups like the audubon society. The usual suspects bemoaning wind farms' bird deaths neglect to mention that coal and oil power are responsible for far more bird deaths. Here's one comparison; and this says fossil fuel power stations kill about 35x more birds per GWh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:a million dead pigeons on the pavement next to trump tower don't matter Getting off topic but pigeons are able to live in cities without dying en masse because they're domesticated from a natural habitat with lots of cliffs. It's migratory birds along major flyways (with coasts being two of the four major ones) that are most at risk. Of course you probably aren't actually sincere about it if you're so anti-nimby and pro-"science is... like... amazeballs ftw, just ftw" blowfish posted:As always, the answer lies in the power of the mighty atom. e: just to make clear I'm not recommending anything based on bird deaths, just pointing out that anyone who brings it up is probably wrongheaded or just repeating poo poo they heard Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:One of my favorite examples of "leftwashing" for a specific cause is - visit the audobon society's webpage and look up anything they have there regarding wind turbine energy generation - holy poo poo it's like talking to a vegan about sustainable chicken farming Here's the audubon society's stance just for reference (they strongly support it)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:What a lovely way to go - just flyin around eating bugs and stuff, see a nice concrete thing to sit on - die from radioactive poisoning? TO be fair - I have no idea how those birds died and would be interested in learning more if anybody cares to look it up. There's not much research on it and the one paper cited in the figure apparently is preliminary and has some questionable methodology including extrapolating from samples at certain sites instead of a controlled study/survey. The numbers given are a very liberal figure and looking into it further it has probably less of an impact on birds than wind so I'll retract my earlier statement. The main impacts are from the mining itself, with tailings ponds and possible forest acidification of habitats where mining or disposal of residual mining materials takes place. The power plants themselves are fine; they're regulated well enough. The mining industry, not so much. quote:As he watched, a pelican at the flock’s tail end was swiped by a massive turbine blade and “literally ‘erased’ from the air,”  Anyway, I think the well-being of people should be more important to people than the well-being of birds. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
The reason there's such an overlap between people defending the pipeline, people who defend cops disproportionately shooting black people in the back, and people who back in the day defended mass pillage and of iraq and the torture of its citizens is because all three of those things have the same aim of upholding the economic supremacy of white supply side capitalists and their entitlement to go wherever they want to remake the world as they wish (and benefiting only those who they want to benefit). All use the same language of pointing to an alleged deficiency in the victim people's culture in excusing why capitalists should be allowed to take they want at one point in time (a foreign country and its resources, the lives and unpaid labor of millions, land and culture) and fail to honor any claims for justice/compensation later on. The victim groups are made into an "other" group for whom "normal" legal justice cannot be applied; instead only a more brutal, violent approach can be taken with these people since the cultural argument leaves an implication that they don't share the capability for rationality that the white capitalists have. They then hide behind legalism, failing to understand that they are relying on past unjust legal decisions that set the precedent of a double standard: one set of rules is acceptable for those in with means and belonging to an acceptable culture, and others who must be either assimilated wholly or excluded and concentrated into ghettos, reservations or prisons. There, they are subject to extra rules/ have to take extra precautions on top of the host nation's laws, with the host nation's law enforcement intruding frequently to assert itself. At the same time, they're deliberately passed over for the benefits and rights normal citizens of the state receive. In native americans' case, they get a kind sovereignty-in--name-only that can be revoked through violence whenever the host sees fit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The problem is that randoms being able to disrupt infrastructure construction successfully it's not infrastructure for the public benefit. it's private infrastructure whose necessity and path was decided in the first place by "randoms," it's just these randoms happen to be rich. The precedent being set (or rather maintained) by the pipeline is upholding the state's slavish devotion to private fossil fuel companies - a tradition rife with eminent domain abuse, regulatory capture and unnecessary subsidies. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Tias posted:The Crow nation is on-site and part of the protest, so It reminds me of people who try to absolve their own group of blame for slavery by saying "they had it coming, I mean if you look at how black slavers sold their own people out..." treating all the members of a later-constructed racial grouping as a monolithic entity. Of course if you tried to treat white people monolithically and say something like "The Whites had all of the deaths from the world wars coming, they betrayed and killed themselves in record numbers, what a bunch of idiots!" that would be obviously absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
. Even you have probably gotten it through your skull by now, that there is not one single reason for the protest.
|
blowfish posted:People who have studied the topic in question sufficiently to make an informed and factual assessment get to make an informed and factual assessment. This is because their findings are not just based on random-rear end opinions but state-of-the-art knowledge and well-tested methods. If the question is "does this project risk harming the environment/drinking water/etc" then you ask environmental engineers and ecologists, not the first person with a really strong opinion you come across. Are you extensively trained and studied in some field of social science that covers the history of the involved groups? If you aren't, your opinion on this topic wouldn't be qualified under your own criteria. e: also, this still wouldn't provide a good optimum for all since it ignores problems with the education system excluding some groups over others. Experts from one selected group are less likely to consider issues to people outside their own group (for instance, you consider Occupy 'at least a worthwhile reason to protest' while the historic injustices causing massive poverty in reservations aren't) Rodatose fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Anyone can point to the words of whatever pundit they want to justify their irrational beliefs and say they only get the best facts from the experts. It seems like you're just a NIMBY, but for people complaining on the internet
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Privatization is a loving nightmare and you're a heartless rear end in a top hat for suggesting its a good idea. I think you're replying to the "pinochet was actually good" guy from the latin american thread, in a conversation about privatization
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
If you wanna relive the "what's the definition of shoot" conversation just click the following quote and read backwards from there Absurd Alhazred posted:Could this derail about whether or not the bullet was bullety enough please cease?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If a state Senator catches a homeless tweaker rooting through his garbage, and said tweaker brandishes a knife and says he'll gut the Senator like a fish if he calls the cops, the disparity in wealth and power between the two parties does not somehow alter the nature of the threat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Actually we shouldn't be encouraging the model of basing life around car culture; it contributes to fossil fuel use, wasted economies of scale from transportation costs, traffic deaths, unsustainable infrastructure costs for a tax base divided locally, etc. Plus plus road widening causes more congestion since more space between things increases people's reliance on cars. There might be an analogy here to stoking fossil fuel reliance
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There are actually valid arguments about why we should treat oil pipelines differently from freeways, but no one has actually made them. I made the valid argument that the widening of a freeway actually makes traffic worse due to induced demand from further reliance on cars (and therefore increases likelihood of accidents), then hoped people would be smart enough to put two and two together w/r/t how building more pipelines aren't actually meant to divert other, less safe forms of oil transport (and therefore increase the total frequency of pipeline spills) e: no one has really contested the point that further pipelines aren't meant to actually replace current supply methods. Likewise, widening lanes actually does increase car use, so it'd be valid for someone to protest further road expansion. Gobbledygook's example was an own-goal because it further shows how little they understand of how infrastructure works (their understanding being more obviously=better!) and that since they're wrong, they should rethink their stance; either that or their motivation really comes down to "no rabblerousers in my backyard" (after all, they gushed earlier about how everyone is in need of some "water cannon therapy") Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Your principles are situational since you think it's okay for some people to use violence against a group of people in some situations but it's not okay for those people to use violence (against property) in other situations. If you really had ""principles"" you'd either say all violence all the time or no violence at all !!!!!!!!!    
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
German guy who has strong opinions against native americans, that them protesting possible impacts of nearby eminent domain use for private gain is insignificant NIMBYism and that they have it coming if they get hurt by authorities, but also has strong opinions that authorities cracking down on a forum thread about people dying on mt. everest is a step too far (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:This is a really cool and interesting post to make in the thread about an oil pipeline e: Just showing the priorities of the kind of person who obsessively comes back to post about how stupid the protesters are
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 23:23
|
|