advertisement


The amazing Alexandria

Marky-Mark said:
I wasn't including you, Joe. I realize you've made quite an effort to keep it above the fold. But you have to admit that between the silence on this week's news that the UK will attempt to be carbon neutral in 30 years (ignoring that most scientists paint a dire picture of what 30 years will look like even if we were carbon neutral when I hit 'Post Reply') and the death spiral of the Climate thread here it doesn't look, smell or walk like concern from where any thinking person sits. Brexit gets thousands of views and 100s of posts, but Climate? I think it says something.
Click to expand...

Why not start a thread then? I guess Brexit is around the first corner and climate catastrophe around the next few. Can you imagine PM Johnson taking climate change seriously?
 
Marky-Mark said:
I don't think any of you are worried about climate change beyond the effort it takes to appear so, going by the gang-bang of ignored counterpoints after a vector to pump egos is found and the game declared over. I've been there, trust me. And over misstating a position on meat. Besides, there's a dead thread somewhere in the back pages here to illustrate all the fronted anxiety over climate.
Click to expand...


Most people here are fully aware of the implications of global heating, in an ideal world we wouldn’t have fvcked it up in the first place, in an ideal world we wouldn’t have paid bankers billions to misallocate capital on colossal scale, in an ideal world there wouldn’t Brexit and there wouldn’t be Boris Johnston and Jeremy Corbyn in politics but there is, first we have to get someone competent in charge to deal with the problem and no one who cannot solve the Brexit issue can solve global warming.
 
tuga said:
Don't stop there, why not start a genuine news website?
Click to expand...

Because there's too much intellectual dishonesty in the OT sub. The exchange between me, vuk and sean proves my point. Nowhere did I write or hint at people being idiots, but I'm accused of thinking that by sean. And so I ask, what's different about your information? Hem and haw, haw and hem. All the news is from the same pool. There's no secret source of the best ever news, so what's the difference that benefits the experts here.

Everyone here knows the answer. Some people can't properly process information due to bias or this or that or simple stupidity. It's all there on a normal IQ curve where there are significantly more people with between a 95 and 105 IQ than there are people with 115 or 20 or whatever. I can cop to thinking there are a lot of idiots in the electorate. Sure, because there are. There's no crime in the truth.

And Sean and vuk know it too. They imply it in passing. Could be 'he watches Fox news' or something that implies low information people. But they won't cop to it when they can project it onto someone else who never wrote it. That's what makes the OT sub so precious. Or patently obnoxious, depending on your viewpoint.
 
tuga said:
You obviously mean your viewpoint here. There. Everywhere. (nice song by the way)
Click to expand...

I meant in general, but yes, that's my opinion. I didn't always take this attitude. But it's become a when in Rome proposition.

If you write strong opinions the odds are high that someone here is going to come along and shit on it, and you by extension. All that "bat the post not the poster" is nonsense. You can't tell someone their opinion is ignorant without the glaring implication that they're ignorant for stating it. I don't know what fantasy world that comes from but it's silly.

I really think that's a big part of the perpetual snark and defensiveness here in OT. People know the game, a few clever by half guys exploit it while more have been victims of the 'post batting' and posture accordingly. It's really not difficult to do, the trick is stomaching it for any length of time. Which is why I'm not typing in Rome frequently.
 
tuga said:
youtube spectacle
Click to expand...

That's very nice. I lasted 2 minutes but I'm sure she does a decent job of lightening rod, as countless other first term young democrats have over the last 200+ plus years.

What I'm interested in is what she's done for you personally. Take some time and make a list of any motions or proposals that not only appeal to you but benefit you. But remember if you say "she gives me hope" you've tacitly agreed with everything I've written.
 
Marky-Mark said:
Because there's too much intellectual dishonesty in the OT sub. The exchange between me, vuk and sean proves my point. Nowhere did I write or hint at people being idiots, but I'm accused of thinking that by sean. And so I ask, what's different about your information? Hem and haw, haw and hem. All the news is from the same pool. There's no secret source of the best ever news, so what's the difference that benefits the experts here.

Everyone here knows the answer. Some people can't properly process information due to bias or this or that or simple stupidity. It's all there on a normal IQ curve where there are significantly more people with between a 95 and 105 IQ than there are people with 115 or 20 or whatever. I can cop to thinking there are a lot of idiots in the electorate. Sure, because there are. There's no crime in the truth.

And Sean and vuk know it too. They imply it in passing. Could be 'he watches Fox news' or something that implies low information people. But they won't cop to it when they can project it onto someone else who never wrote it. That's what makes the OT sub so precious. Or patently obnoxious, depending on your viewpoint.
Click to expand...
OK, sounded to me like you were justifying your blanket scorn for people in general by pointing out that they'd bought into a load of crap and you hadn't. I can sort of see that that's not quite the same thing as assuming a kind of generalised idiocy.

As for me, yes, I'm blaming the media for the generally poor quality of public debate. I think the sins are more those of omission than commission: I mean the media certainly distract us, mislead us, and straightforwardly misinform us about stuff but they're not magic, they can't stop us finding things out, and there's enough information available in the margins for us to be able to school ourselves. It's not like it takes any great smarts to do it either, but it's an effortful and derided endeavour, where it should be straightforward and normal. It could be, too, with a reformed media, and when it is then public exchanges about climate change and old churches might have a bit more purchase on reality. That's something that can be worked towards and I'd rather do that than complain about people choosing unicorn farts over facts or whatever.
 
Oh blah blah blah. So sincere to agree while going around in circles and jamming a rhetorical boot in my ass along the way. It's so utterly tiresome because it's all it ever is. I think if one day you hit the reply button and balloons and confetti covered the screen you'd find a way to be grateful while taking a circuitous dump on the master of ceremonies.
 
Marky-Mark said:
Oh blah blah blah. So sincere to agree while going around in circles and jamming a rhetorical boot in my ass along the way. It's so utterly tiresome because it's all it ever is. I think if one day you hit the reply button and balloons and confetti covered the screen you'd find a way to be grateful while taking a circuitous dump on the master of ceremonies.
Click to expand...
You have a persecution complex, sorry to have fed it.
 
Marky-Mark said:
I meant in general, but yes, that's my opinion. I didn't always take this attitude. But it's become a when in Rome proposition.

If you write strong opinions the odds are high that someone here is going to come along and shit on it, and you by extension. All that "bat the post not the poster" is nonsense. You can't tell someone their opinion is ignorant without the glaring implication that they're ignorant for stating it. I don't know what fantasy world that comes from but it's silly.

I really think that's a big part of the perpetual snark and defensiveness here in OT. People know the game, a few clever by half guys exploit it while more have been victims of the 'post batting' and posture accordingly. It's really not difficult to do, the trick is stomaching it for any length of time. Which is why I'm not typing in Rome frequently.
Click to expand...

The thing about AOC and this thread is that she speaks for herself.

No commentators, no buffers, no twisting, no faking.
 
sean99 said:
I'm sorry but whenever I read your posts all I see is snark.
Click to expand...

I'm good with your honesty. But what I'd rather hear is what part of this snark isn't true. Am I lying about the adulation of AOC being more cult of personality than anything resembling substance, or has her Green New Deal actually addressed climate in a way I'm unaware of?

Am I wrong that without question the dominant story of our lifetime - climate and collapse - takes a back seat to everything in OT -from what whisky to buy to politics as usual - is that snark a lie too? I mean, the only climate thread died some time ago. I suppose that's my imagination.

Is it actually snark to point out that the UK is proposing a plan to be carbon neutral in 30 years (with carbon credits, ugh) but posters think rhetorically destroying one side or the other in a binary game of brexit chicken is the story of our time when science is ringing one alarm bell after another of unimaginable worldwide catastrophe?

Is the snark pointing all of that ^^ out and drawing a conclusion of monkey see, monkey do (parroting what the news media deems top stories) seem a very convenient way to ignore an impending disaster or am I off my rocker and swimming in snark?

Is it so wrong to get snarky when every conversation I've been in here regarding climate or collapse devolves into users point scoring for thread victory rather than getting to anything resembling the nut of the issue?

Is it snark or truth when pointing out the M.O. of many prolific OT posters is to wriggle around the AUP and "bat the post" while generally acting an ass to insult people and not draw a ban, and all while that's apparently unnecessary given that one of the most prolific recently called a female poster a bit*h and a c*nt with zero consequence because he thought that she thought she was smarter than he is?

I could go on but there's only so much of this horse I can beat. Cue the batter's box.
 
Marky-Mark said:
I'm good with your honesty. But what I'd rather hear is what part of this snark isn't true. Am I lying about the adulation of AOC being more cult of personality than anything resembling substance, or has her Green New Deal actually addressed climate in a way I'm unaware of?

Am I wrong that without question the dominant story of our lifetime - climate and collapse - takes a back seat to everything in OT -from what whisky to buy to politics as usual - is that snark a lie too? I mean, the only climate thread died some time ago. I suppose that's my imagination.

Is it actually snark to point out that the UK is proposing a plan to be carbon neutral in 30 years (with carbon credits, ugh) but posters think rhetorically destroying one side or the other in a binary game of brexit chicken is the story of our time when science is ringing one alarm bell after another of unimaginable worldwide catastrophe?

Is the snark pointing all of that ^^ out and drawing a conclusion of monkey see, monkey do (parroting what the news media deems top stories) seem a very convenient way to ignore an impending disaster or am I off my rocker and swimming in snark?

Is it so wrong to get snarky when every conversation I've been in here regarding climate or collapse devolves into users point scoring for thread victory rather than getting to anything resembling the nut of the issue?

Is it snark or truth when pointing out the M.O. of many prolific OT posters is to wriggle around the AUP and "bat the post" while generally acting an ass to insult people and not draw a ban, and all while that's apparently unnecessary given that one of the most prolific recently called a female poster a bit*h and a c*nt with zero consequence because he thought that she thought she was smarter than he is?

I could go on but there's only so much of this horse I can beat. Cue the batter's box.
Click to expand...

What was the name of that planet you said you came from?
 
tuga said:
What was the name of that planet you said you came from?
Click to expand...

It's this really weird place where people prefer science over Twitter darlings, memes, cartoon characters and denial of the obvious. In other words, I don't think you'd like it much, especially since the inhabitants at least attempt to answer direct questions.
 
Marky-Mark said:
It's this really weird place where people prefer science over Twitter darlings, memes, cartoon characters and denial of the obvious. In other words, I don't think you'd like it much, especially since the inhabitants at least attempt to answer direct questions.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question... And I don't do twitter by the way.
 
Last edited:
Marky-Mark said:
It's this really weird place where people prefer science over Twitter darlings, memes, cartoon characters and denial of the obvious. In other words, I don't think you'd like it much, especially since the inhabitants at least attempt to answer direct questions.
Click to expand...

marky.

AOC may be a twitter darling to a lot of people, but that is not where her rise to "power" came from -- she's not a celebrity daughter with a make0-up line.

she is the result of a progressive grass roots movement that achieved a spectacular result. it is documented in this film:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9358052/

i'll reply to your other post later. have to consume some information and chick peas right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top