I want someone to tell me why even if climate change isn’t real we shouldn’t switch over to renewable energy I mean coal and oil will run out at some point and research is currently on going on improving renewable. currently looking over the 2020 Lazard energy report and
Global levelized cost of generation
MWh = mega watts per hour
Solar is now 36$/MWh
Wind: on shore 40$/MWh | off shore 86$/MWh
Geothermal 80$/MWh
Coal 112$/MWh
Nuclear 164$/MWh
Gas: combined cycle 59$/MWh / peaker 175$/MWh
So it’s clear that in the long term it’s certainly better to use renewables economy wise. Now before anyone says it this is a global average and as such subsidies do not matter and this measuring out cost per megawatt so in the long term those don’t matter in calculating cost per power unit. Nuclear is is a class of its own as in my opinion nuclear power’s use is it to be in extreme environments like Mars where other power options aren’t viable
@tamerlane
you have a VERY specific definition of preservation that isn't exactly in line with what is conventionally considered "preservation"
not every historically significant work is constantly in print, and certainly while profit plays a part, I disagree with you sentiment that putting a book out of print is "DESTROYING" it like, as you humorously compared, blowing up a monument with bombs.
And yes, I have seen Trump's twitter page, and I've seen Newsmax and the supporters that gather around him. I interact with them regularly. Am I wrong to state that those who don't belive on basic medical fact are spreaders of disease?
Kids are smart yes, but they're also very impressionable, and as I stated earlier, books are supplementary to education, hence, with the current status quo, they're just going to be taken at a base level with some nice, vintage stereotypes, and therefore taking the book out of print is simply the most practical option.
not every historically significant work is constantly in print, and certainly while profit plays a part, I disagree with you sentiment that putting a book out of print is "DESTROYING" it like, as you humorously compared, blowing up a monument with bombs.
This point is where I know you’re not actually considering my argument.
I said:
By your logic, you could justify ISIS blowing up Assyrian and Babylonian statues and history because they do not represent the country's modern values. I believe they should be preserved because of their cultural significance and because of their worth as an artistic medium. Now you have to defend by what principles you have that they should not be destroyed.
Note that I say things like “By your logic,” and refer to your principles and my principles, meaning we are not talking about the cessation of publication of the books, but YOUR internal logic and principles.
I was NOT saying that the two were synonymous as you seem to want to make it out. I’m poking holes in your logic and trying to work from your parameters that you have given me.
Even then, I would say a book ceasing publication solely because of the tense political climate and fringe political ideologues would be “censorship,” and as I have said before, censorship exists to varying degrees in which not all are equal.
And yes, I have seen Trump's twitter page, and I've seen Newsmax and the supporters that gather around him. I interact with them regularly. Am I wrong to state that those who don't belive[sic] on basic medical fact are spreaders of disease?
From what you have shown to us, it seems habitual that you seem to lump groups together and paint them all with the same brush, and then go on to misrepresent their arguments. So excuse me for taking your point with a grain of salt, but I believe that you are not characterizing them accurately.
Kids are smart yes, but they're also very impressionable, I stated earlier, books are supplementary to education
Yes, which is why we need to remove politically motivated education or pushing political agendas to kids as political indoctrination and instead give them things that allow them to think and come to their own conclusions.
You know who’s got a good catalog of stories that aren’t spelled out?
they're just going to be taken at a base level with some nice, vintage stereotypes, and therefore taking the book out of print is simply the most practical option.
What you’re missing is that not only are the stereotypical depictions not even a main plot point, but are so insignificant that they are unlikely to leave a lasting impression, especially when it’s one depiction that people will most likely not remember in a week as opposed to general zeitgeist which doesn’t like ANY stereotypes.
Also, why is taking the books out of print the most practical option? Wouldn’t a disclaimer suffice? How did you arrive to this conclusion?! And how even are the depictions intrinsically bad if they’re not negative depictions?!
For example, I sleep great at night knowing Trump isn’t spreading misinformation to these Qnuts here in Red State Hell, even though I still have to listen to their rants about fake snow in Texas or 5G or whatever the fuck and still provide “customer service.”
good god, this implies he lives in a red state. i feel bad for his neighbors, his statements on their actions are so stereotypical leftist in the view of the right that they are obviously imaginary so i can only imagine hes walking around town covering his ears and whenever somone asks him if he's ok his mind reimagines the interaction as "the snow is colluding with the 5g towers to make us all wear masks!" or somthing
the gender pay gap is a myth, when you control for all the differences in employment benefits, conditions of employment, overtime, etc it shrinks to near nonexistence. in fact if you compare single childless men and women the gap is reversed
then the law aspect says that women basically get away with more and/or are punished less harshly than men, likely due to the fact we're just a pair of tits & asses to them
you are correct the first part does indeed happen but i do want to point out that going easy on women isnt just for the pretty ones. old women and homely women are treated that way as well. i think its more likely that the cause isnt objectification but infantilization. the judges are looking to women the same way they do towards a child and go easy on them.
Even then, no I want the status quo of education changed and to root out all of the critical theory and far-left ideology that has rooted in it, just as I want all the conservative talking points taken out of the education in my home state
i grew up swapping schools public-religious-private then went to collage private-religious-private in 2 red states. in elementary if i came across politics it was forgettable, in middle school if i decided to do the same thing as my classmates(predominately black class)i was lectured and they were ignored while occasionally preached too about the end times via global warming and peak oil at the same time, in high school things were surprisingly balanced with a teacher going out of their way to show both sides of arguments and i had both a super pro 2nd amendment teacher and a teacher that felt that teachers shouldnt have to succeed to remain teacher openly lamenting when a law was passed making her pay attached to students scores and how she cant be blamed for them failing, finally collage in all my years i met 1 teacher who seemed conservative the rest where either not openly political; slightly left of center; or outright leftist.
i even had one guy that was absolutely bonkers, claimed that rich people siphon the blood of the young to make themselves healthy.
and incorrectly stated the poem referenced the Night of Broken Glass.
like tamer said the Night of Broken Glass is different. and based off what i looked up the only thing wrong about our quotes of the poem is that socialists dont come first it goes communists then socialist which doesnt change anything because when he says "first they came for the communists" may be a reference to the socialist vrs communist riots that occured before the nazi's rise to power or the persecution of communists after the Reichstag Fire either way it came before the night of long knives
the only reason Climate change denial exists is because the left has made itself so difficult to trust that some have started rejecting everything they believe that they cant immediatly confirm themselves. even then its not a politically powerful group
So it’s clear that in the long term it’s certainly better to use renewables economy wise
while i agree we should move away from gas and coal, wind and solar just arent a reliable means to do it. i'll go more into detail with you later because ive been trying to finish this post for ages
@tamerlane
Because disclaimers don’t work as the supplementary material is just reinforcement of taught prejudice
The dream of a “politically neutral” education is impossible, as our view of the world is directly tied to politics to varying extents, including the belief that education is essential etc.
My internal logic and principles don’t lead to the extremes you’re claiming they do, as I’m stating them in the most basic forms possible without going in to specifics because it would be exhausting to explain over-all theory in psychological grouping behavior etc and how our opinions probably (most certainly) differ in regards to reinforcement of stereotypes instead of active challenge of such lazy depictions (“positive” stereotypes are laziness as well, as they are an impediment to actual understanding of group dynamics)
You can claim I paint COVID reactionaries with a broad brush, but they are reactionaries that take fringe views and promote their existence in order to produce a counter-narrative to the prevailing one, whatever that may be, which has proved an effective strategy. “Media says masks good? Masks bad.” Is the easiest one. Certainly there are more reasonable people on the right, but I despise such anti-intellectualism wholeheartedly.
Why do you assume the replacement wouldn’t be nuanced? We haven’t even discussed that. And again, your definition of preservation differs from the norm. Most notably about the statues example, which by your definition would mean we’re producing more statues instead of maintains the ones we have
Easy, don't even need citations, statistics or studies: they're heavily reliant on the weather and location.
You could end up having lengthy periods of time with no sun or wind because of climate change, and the fact you need sooooo many more of them in one area compared to using hazardous materials or dangerous technologies to power entire cities.
Yeah, you could drop solar panels for days in a desert or build windmills way up on the mountains, but then it gets into even more weatherand climate dependency because mountain = cold, which means you need to build them so they're resistant, and desert = hot therefore overheating and/or etc.
And let's not even get started on waterwheels and hydro plants for electricity.
@stupid_goo here’s the big thing coal and oil are going to run out at some point so the better option to the problem is improving technology that we know we can use for a very long time. This isn’t even a statistics at the point this is long term thinking.
wind only works when the wind blows and solar panels only when the sun shines. while you can try to argue that we can just store energy in batteries it would take the largest battery factory in the world 500 years to store one days worth of america's energy needs
it is estimated that by 2050 old solar panels will make up over double the tonnage of all of today's global plastic waste
if we were to swap to nuclear immediately from what i looked up 1 power plant uses 3.14 kg/day of uranium it would take about 400 nuclear power plants's to power about 71ish% of the usa and there is about 140585000000 kg of uranium accessible to man at the moment so we would run out of uranium in about 111930732.4840764 days or 306659.541 years. and that assumes no technological advancement or new discoveries in the field. nuclear is the future
@readingsit
My neighbors tried to get me to join Amway. If you don't think there are nuts out there, spend a few months in the South.
Also you should at least talk aboutt geothermal if you're talking about alternate energy, it's the most viable and can even be used for smaller scale projects (see the work Dandelion has done)
@readingsit nuclear could tie us over until we can figure out more efficient technology and techniques for wind and solar and also battery storage the short term trade off of storing nuclear waste is better then pumping poison into our atmosphere.
i cant write about everything all at once! im working on it! *looks at clock* shit. ill save what i have as a text file and finish it tomorrow. its 3 in the morn over here
Also you should at least talk aboutt geothermal if you're talking about alternate energy, it's the most viable and can even be used for smaller scale projects (see the work Dandelion has done)
based off what i looked up geothermal is indeed a possible future to green energy. its real downsides are it's enormous investment cost, lack of current technology, and location specifications(which might be fixed with future tech). my only real disagreement over its usage is timing. investing in it now while we still lack technology but still need to move away from fossil fuels is unreliable. we should invest in nuclear and once we have minimized FF's then we should invest in geothermal
im afraid we're already almost at technological peak on solar(max 33% current 26%) and wind (max 60%current 45%).
the question is less of more efficiency and instead quantity. but the more you make the more the environmental impact of digging in remote or undeveloped areas
Guy in charge of opening and closing ceremonies made fun of a fat celeb (American-style plus-size model) who was supposed to perform in the ceremony. Some news outlets immediately jumped on the sexist bandwagon because if you have a problem with a woman you are automatically sexist. He regretted and resigned immediately despite Hashimoto herself asked him to stay. At least dude got some standards.
Of course, not a very good thing for him to say. But not to the point of getting sacked or sexism. I wonder how she was even chosen to perform. I don't know much about her and it's up to her what she does, but I still think these plus-size models need a doctor.
not a very nice thing for him to say but he shouldnt have resigned he should have given an apology to Naomi herself and moved on with his job and life. by surrendering himself to the media he only gives them more power
You know I already dislike the guy because he made fun of someone who is fat but that just seems like something minor that happens in the holly wood scandal industry not something to lose a career over.
It's so that the guy would take all the blame and "die" with it, drawing off as much of the heat as possible. From there they can make whatever public statement they want to sweep it under and the media would have to find a new foothold to attack.
I wonder how she was even chosen to perform. I don't know much about her and it's up to her what she does, but I still think these plus-size models need a doctor.
Hell, the infamous "Censored Eleven" cartoons by Warner brothers, which objectively are MUCH worse than ANYTHING Dr Seuss published still were released with disclaimers.
If parents are irresponsible, that is their fault, not the fault of the entertainment.
the supplementary material is just reinforcement of taught prejudice
Where is this "taught prejudice," when every major institution and the vast majority of the popularity condemns racism as vile and evil? What fringe minority is left that we out to go after anything that may loosely be considered racial in nature until all is purified of the racist taint? Also, how much material reinforces that prejudice in comparison to ALL THE MATERIAL that does NOT support it?
These are the images that got his work banned
1) And To Think I Saw It On Mulberry Street
The original version before it was altered in 1970 showed him with yellow skin and had the term "chinaman," though it was not always seen as an ethnic slur until more recent years and was not being used in a pejorative sense here. If anything, it seemed to be more in reference to the diversity of Mulberry Street, New York and variety of cultures common to it.
If this depiction was meant to be insulting, it's interesting that he didn't include buck teeth like he did on his Japanese pictures from WWII. It's also interesting they censored the man's queue, which was popular under the Qing period of Chinese Rule, which had only ended twenty years before the initial publication of "Two think I saw it on Mulberry Street." If I were to guess, the Queue is typically viewed with disdain by the Han Chinese, who view it as a sign of oppression from their rule by the Manchus, who had it mandated as a custom. (Interestingly, San Fransico had the "Pigtail ordinance," in the late 19th century which made it so that Chinese immigrants had to cut their queue off if they were imprisoned.)
In any case, I don't think this image can be defined as "racist," because it is not vilifying or dehumanizing the man, and he is just as stereotypical as the magician he is next to. If anything, it shows an ignorance of the contemporary Chinese culture at the time of publication by modern audiences.
2) Mc Elligot's Pool
The most potentially offensive thing is the use of the term "Eskimo," but that is not a perojerative and has been taken up by modern culture. For instance, it's not offensive to call the Incan empire "the Incan Empire," even though "Inca" is the king, whereas they called themselves " Tawantinsuyu," or "The four winds." Ancient Egypt did not call itself "Egypt," but a variety of names such as "Kemet," "Kermet," or "Kmt," which means "black land," referring to the Nile's fertility, and called the kingdom "the people of the black lands," or "the gift of the Nile," as epithets.
Really, it's semantic nomenclature at best and being overly pedantic in terminology because of all the different ways cultures referred to themselves and others throughout history and there's many names across many different languages in circulation, so being picky about what you're being called when what's more important is that the people understand what you're referencing is proper. Also it clearly is not depicting them in a negative way or an overly exaggerated way, so what even is the point?
Also, everything about the dress (which is most commonly furs and leather) and the Igloo is accurate, so it's not worth even mentioning.
3) But if I ran the Zoo
The important thing to note about this book is that it is written from the perspective of a child, who goes to the Zoo and feels as if it is inadequate. Literally everything in this book is a framing device from the imagination of a child who doesn't understand the world or know about different cultures.
Not only that, but the places cited are completely fictitious, so it could be argued that the entirety of this book is written from a child's perspective from the era in which this book was written and their understanding of the world. Criticizing the depictions for being stereotypical or inaccurate misses the point of the book completely because it's not meant to be realistic or an accurate depiction of anything but what strange visuals and creative ideas the author can come up with. Anything racist comes from the fact that children are very blunt in describing differences in appearance and don't understand social faux pos.
It's superficial and lacks any understanding of context to call it racist for stereotypical depictions when the premise is that it's all imaginative by someone who doesn't know what animals are real and fake, let alone having a nuanced cultural understanding of different parts of the world.
4) Beyond a Zebra
This book is written as an ABCs thing, but what's interesting is that this one represents a completely fictious culture that's vaguely a mix of Persian (Camels, hookah, clothes, etc.) and Chinese with the archetiture, but there's no actual real-world parallel to this nor group it's representing or meant to be depicting
SO HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU BE RACIST IF YOU'RE DISPLAYING A CULTURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST AND HAS NEVER EXISTED? It just borrows elements form real cultures, which ALL fiction does.
Am I taking crazy pills?
5) Scrambled Eggs Super
What's this? Another fictitious culture that only has superficial similarities to a real world one? (Except in this case, furs and leather really are the only things that are available to make clothes out of in the polar regions, so you can't even argue that)
If you consider this racist, you can literally never display an Innuit person in public because it would be stereotypical. This says more about you and your willingness to be offended than it does Dr Seuss.
6) The Cat's Quizzer
So let me get this straight: a one-panel image of a man in a rice hat with a Shinto Torii and a mountain (common in japan) and a skin tone which is the same as the background (probably to save on printing costs but whatever) is somehow so offensive that children DARE NOT see it? Are you high?
If you spend five minutes in any comment section on this website, you will hear more degrading things said about the Japanese than what is depicted here.
The conclusion I have come to is that if you think that censorship is justified in this case, and that these books are so wrongfully offensive and can't be shown to children, then there is literally no depiction of any culture that is acceptable.
My internal logic and principles don’t lead to the extremes you’re claiming they do, as I’m stating them in the most basic forms possible without going in to specifics
With all due respect, if your principles are so nuanced (which based on your responses, I sincerely doubt that is the case) that they need a million caveats to be true, then they are not really "principles," now are they? Because principles are meant to be guidelines and standards by which you hold dear as to prevent yourself from losing sight of what you find important in the sea of nuances.
over-all theory in psychological grouping behavior etc and how our opinions probably (most certainly) differ in regards to reinforcement of stereotypes instead of active challenge of such lazy depictions (“positive” stereotypes are laziness as well, as they are an impediment to actual understanding of group dynamics)
I'm willing to hash out those nuances because people tend to lean towards generalizations because it's cognitively simple, even if an ecological fallacy, however, it would be just as fallacious to go with the contrapositive of "well, this is stereotypical, therefore it must be false," when it is more operationally helpful to judge each stereotype based on understanding of socio-cultural and economic factors, and understanding proportions if judging in generalities and not applying that to every individual.
Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean it's inaccurate, it's just whether something is stereotypical is a different metric to it's veracity or relation to truth. It's a stereotype to think that white people have light skin, or that healthy teeth are generally shouldn't be black, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any truth to it.
Hence why the concept of "stereotypes" really are unhelpful because if you're so concerned how you think people see things versus what they actually believe, versus what the data actually says, then you end up making a lot of erroneous and irrelevant assumptions.
The dream of a “politically neutral” education is impossible, as our view of the world is directly tied to politics to varying extents, including the belief that education is essential etc.
I would say that this is a false dichotomy, in that just because nothing will ever be perfectly objective that we should not try to remove any obvious bias or minimize its effect as much as possible, or to teach in a way that does not promote one world view as fact, but teach a variety of perspectives and the ability for students to think critically so that they may decide for themselves. Saying that "We should ensure that our education teaches as accurate information as possible" is not saying "purge anything potentially politically biased from the school system." Again, it feels like you keep committing the Nirvana fallacy in that you think that something has to be completely fool-proof, or it's worthless to even attempt, or to try to be.
You could also make the same argument about Racism, but I don't think that would go over very well with the people trying to make sure anything vaguely or potentially racist is utterly purged from soceity.
You can claim I paint COVID reactionaries with a broad brush, but they are reactionaries that take fringe views and promote their existence in order to produce a counter-narrative to the prevailing one, whatever that may be, which has proved an effective strategy.
Define "reactionaries," because it's all too often a buzzword that doesn't mean much. Though, I should note I wasn't referring to the COVID people but that you seemed to lump trump supporters, people on the right, and Qanon people all together in one large amorphous blob, which I though was lacking.
I also should note that tactic is common on both the left and the right, except it seems that the Left does it through the media and with talking heads like Vaush, who explicitly say that because the right has a narrative on something, that the left should as well, regardless of the truth of the matter. I believe that we should go where the evidence leads us, and not simply go on the words of authority figures or go against the orthodoxy for the sake of going against it, but that's because I'm an empiricist and a Popperian at heart.
“Media says masks good? Masks bad.” Is the easiest one. Certainly there are more reasonable people on the right, but I despise such anti-intellectualism wholeheartedly.
I think that still may be a reductionist interpretation of their position. Whilst I do not hold it myself, it is important to remember just a year ago, Fauci came out against masks for the general population, but then came out in favor of it, and now says to get TWO masks, meaning that because of ever-changing conditions and science, it's hard to keep track of what you are MEANT to be doing as the field of knowledge grows. Another point is that people believe it is their natural right to wear whatever they want, and society or the government forcing them to wear a mask is an infringement of those rights, and could lead to a precedent in the future that infringes further on people's ability to choose what they want and not want to wear. Additionally, it also depends on if you're indoors or outdoors and how far away you are from people, as if you're over six feet away and outdoors, there's no point in wearing a mask.
At least, that would be my best faith interpretation of their arguments. I still would advise wearing masks just because you may be asymptomatic or someone else may be, and research has indicated that wearing a mask will help prevent you from spreading it, though it will not protect you as effectively.
I want Nuclear Power more than anything, really. Safe, clean, effective, specially with the use of more safe equipment over time. There have only been three disasters with them, and they are all due to either lack of foresight or multiple things going wrong at once, or the combination of the two.
