volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@brucknerite

Well that's a silly thing to say.
Even if economic forecasts might be unreliable, they at least do have some science behind them, unlike horoscopes.

@pkrugman

@junesim63 this take is naive, though.

I don't know why anybody takes seriously such cartoonish labeling like carbon mega bomb, but in any case, even in terms of the environment, this moved to natural gas is probably better than the practical alternatives.

We can't wave a magic wand and solve the energy needs of the world, we can only choose between different options with their own downsides. This option might be less bad.

And of course, in the end this is a legal process, Biden is not a dictator, and by law he is required to put aside authoritarian impulses when managing this permitting process.

We should be more serious about this sort of topic.

@Ellirahim

The comparison of Gaza with an open-air prison is one that has been pretty well discredited as a rhetorical talking point with little reason to it.

But it's something people parrot all too often.

@antanicus

@pexlibanis

It's entirely possible to call out bad journalism and identify misleading rhetoric without saying bombing is okay.

And I'd say we should.

We should be especially critical of those sources that confirm our biases.

@magnesium @antanicus

@YamakaziTaiga@mastodon.social if you read Citizens United, it says the opposite.

@HappyHeathen@kolektiva.social

But none of that changes what actually happens.

It sounds like you're complaining about the way we think about what happens, but that doesn't change what happens.

In this system, government is empowered by voters. Every elected official was elected. Power comes from the source that is an election.

You and I apparently agree that the voters are sadly ignorant, mind fucked even. All right.

But these mind fucked voters still actively grant the power and actively vote for the officials who get into office.

It doesn't mean it's right, or it's good, or there is a better option, or there is no better option, all of these are side questions.

This is the system we're working with now. If you have a better one for goodness sake, let's work on improving it, but it is the reality now.

@trevorflowers

@dswidow

Well, the logic is based on looking at what's already happened, looking at the way people have already voted.

200 Democrats voted to set the stage for a maga wingnut as Speaker with such intention that they were willing to shut down the entire legislative process to do it.

That doesn't sound like a group ready to negotiate to me.

It also sounds like you're buying into some false information about how the spinning levels are set in Congress. I've seen that going around too, and it's just not how Congress works.

@chiclet @DemocracyMattersALot

@grumble209 and I would also reject that it's the government's problem to supply trained labor to anybody.

But I can simultaneously say it's not government's problem to supply trained labor and also government is failing in the jobs that it does take on, the programs that it sets up and then charges the population taxes to fund.

In fact, to some extent the two ideas are linked as maybe government is failing at the things it should do because it is distracted trying to do exactly this thing that it shouldn't.

@trevorflowers

@alanrycroft

Such a statement is like talking about cancer treatment, but extended to people without cancer: it's no minor thing to extend the concept from the one situation to the other.

@skykiss

@putnamca so I noticed that you are still not citing a specific law or regulation

And I mean that my trying to meet you more than halfway, allowing regulations over and above the USC to prove your claim.

So I guess come back when you have a law to cite.

I would be very interested in knowing what laws machine shops across the country are violating on a daily basis.

I don't know if I've asked two or three times, but either way, that you haven't cited a law really just makes me think that maybe there is none, and we are all in the clear.

@the_Effekt

@putnamca

I repeat, please cite the law. I'm pretty am interested in this.

@the_Effekt

@putnamca

So are you saying you don't have any actual congressional action to cite?

@the_Effekt

@putnamca

Please cite the law that we are breaking by using the aluminum that comes from the guy down the street.

@the_Effekt

@putnamca I hate to tell you, but we don't actually consult Congress over the minimum standards for aluminum.

That's just not how our supply chain works.

We can use aluminum from the guy down the street smelting it from Coke cans in his backyard or even right out of ore if we want. The regulations don't really impact at that level.

Not to mention, I think most standards come from executive branch regulatory action, not Congress itself.

It sounds like you're trying really hard to fit reality into some model you have in mind, but it just doesn't really work that way.

@the_Effekt

@Ignatz

And if we don't want that to be the case, we can change it.

There is some social benefit to investing in companies, but if we don't think that benefit is worthy of the tax policy, okay, we can stop allowing people to deduct investment activities from their income.

@alanrycroft @skykiss

@putnamca but what you're saying is just not factually correct.

If I go into the shop tomorrow and I'm facing the decision of using a hunk of steel versus a hunk of aluminum to make a part I'm not going to consult Congress to decide which is more efficient.

I should probably consider the efficiency of the two different options, the relative costs of the two materials, the difficulty of machining the two, all of those factors that go into efficiency.

Congress didn't invent that kind of difference. Congress doesn't control it.

And the inefficiency isn't locked in as the costs of the two different materials very from week to week.

But, if my workplace would like to have a profit, they'll probably want me to go ahead and use the less costly option. Because inefficiency eats away at profit.

So I think you're really focusing on this top down view of the world that isn't very realistic on a day-to-day basis.

@the_Effekt

@HappyHeathen@kolektiva.social *shrug* every problematic politician has been voted into office.

Really if anything I'm not saying voting is the solution, rather that it is the problem.

We actively go out and vote awful people into office, and we should probably stop doing that.

@trevorflowers

@putnamca you are right on both counts

I'm doing voice dictation at the moment and the AI chose the wrong spelling.

And yes, absolutely, what I can or can't believe isn't really the issue, but if you would like to convince someone like me, this is the barrier you have to overcome. And if you don't, that's all right too.

Rich people turning their backs on money? That seems like a stretch. So how do you make your position make sense given that, assuming you care to?

@the_Effekt

@putnamca and now I have no idea how you brought conservatism into this 🙂

If anything I would go the other way with that.

The profit motive is anti-conservative, so are these people greedy or not? Did they care about efficiency or conservatism? Did they want more money?

I think you're all over the place at this point.

@the_Effekt

@putnamca I just don't believe that fear overcomes the prophet motive like that on the whole.

@the_Effekt