| |
| ▲ | esarbe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The reason for that is manifold. It could be that they are forced out. It could be that their views are changed with higher learning and turn progressive. It could be that conservatives self-select to not go into academia. Pointing that out is not hand-waving. | |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you admit you were lying. Gotcha. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are not many reasons for climate change, it is in fact just humans. That should be obvious. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, so we establish that "Climate change could seem to have many causes, but educated people know that human activity is the proven cause of the majority of the change." And now you have another situation where "there could be many causes for the change X". And you think that because Climate Change followed that pattern above, X must necessarily have only one real cause, and that cause is your preferred pet theory. Does not sound like a convincing argument. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let's just talk about the recent (past 500 years) change in the insulation properties of the planet's atmosphere. It's been in a constant burbling flux that has many factors, fires, volcanoes, etc all contribute to the steady level of churn. The substantial change away from baseline is well recorded, tied back to sources by isotopes, and has a single cause - carbon dioxide by products from the combustion and release of previously sequestered carbon sources. There's no doubt about that - there are multiple atmospheric libraries of gases from various parts of the world to back that up. The data source sets for atmospheric makeup and ocean thermoclines are deeply tied into Cold War nuclear test monitoring and watching enemies, not some hippy dippy eco friendly new age hand wavyness. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, a key difference is that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute, and political views aren't. The paradox of tolerance is real. And more practically, it's impossible to guarantee representation of all viewpoints because there are an infinite number of them. | | |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Is it? Care you define who makes up the "white race"? Or any other overly-broad category that typically gets bandied about as "race"? From my perspective, as someone who is flexibly categorized as "white" or "latino", depending on whatever is most convenient for the categorizer, "race" is a remarkable fluid label. Most people can't even agree on what "race" folks of mixed ethnic heritage actually are. Race is a social construct. There's nothing intrinsic or immutable about any social construct. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you know perfectly well my meaning in context of the comment thread I was replying to. Yes, some people are mixed ethnicity or "white passing". Yes societal views changes ("Italian used to not be considered white"). At the end of the day, most people fall into one of the categories and don't get to change that. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which categories are these though? William Z. Ripley's 1899 The Races of Europe or more, say, Steven Coons Carleton's 1939 treatise? | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. But since you're insisting that this be spelled out: The categories are quite arbitrary, can vary, and can change. Yes, race is a social construct. The point is the physical attributes that often define the categories cannot be significantly changed. One can't particularly make their own skin lighter, regardless of people with marginal skin tones being able to change other aspects about themselves to pass for a lighter category, or regardless of being able to go to a different community where one might be in the lighter category by default. Compare with say how easy it is for someone with different political views to just hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about DEI, just as one had to hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers were waxing poetic about the virtues of mega golf or owning a boat, just as one might have to hold their tongue these days when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about the virtues of fascism. (also can we stop using the word "conservative" as a lazy synonym? Applying that label to the Republican party after ~2020 is absurd) | | |
| ▲ | defrost 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The categories are quite arbitrary, can vary, and can change. Yes, race is a social construct. Obviously. > Compare with say how easy it is for someone with different political views to just hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about DEI, just as one had to hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers were waxing poetic about the virtues of mega golf or owning a boat, just as one might have to hold their tongue these days when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about the virtues of fascism. That seems very un-Australian; I'm unfamiliar with the concept of letting rank stupidity ride w/out having a poke at it, and a lot of people have boats, big, small, whatever. I'm quite fond of shed built ground effect boat/planes FWiW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILbQHnHPnY > can we stop using the word "conservative" as a lazy synonym? Applying that label to the Republican party after ~2020 is absurd TBH I'm not sure I have ever done that; "Conservative" varies by country, as does "Liberal". |
|
| |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think you know perfectly well my meaning in context of the comment thread I was replying to. No, I don't, and smugly insinuating I have some ulterior motive or whatever is, frankly, offensive. I asked you a question because I didn't know what you meant, because you made a statement that was wildly ambiguous even with well-defined context. > most people fall into one of the categories One of... Which categories, exactly? This is why I'm asking. You keep making statements as if they're somehow inherently obvious, but... I can think of many different competing definitions of "race", so I'm trying to figure out which one you're using, or if you're even using one at all. |
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Not to those familiar with the history of the US Census racial classifications, given the number of times the categories shifted and changed it seems more than a little opinionated. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Would you and your sibling care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Ethnicity is mostly stable for most individuals, sure, but it too is hardly immutable - people do and have changed their countries, social cultures, and daily language usage- even to the point of struggling to think and talk in their primary birth languages. > care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? Ahh, that "Charlie" (Kirk) had opinions, that US science is in chaos, that US use of the phrase "leftists" is always grating, that a two party Hotelling's law cluster feck inevitably resulting from US style elections is inadequate to politically represent a large population? There's a lot going on here; one thing at a time is that race being an "an intrinsic immutable attribute" is all manner of horseshit. |
|
|
|
|
