News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
No, you're not pro lgbtq. You're a TERF at best
??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? "Pro merit success" directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.
You're either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?
Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.
Given that description, I'd guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.
Dead wrong, I've always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that's exactly why I commented because I think the 'you're either with us or against us' mentality is doing more damage than it helps.
I'm only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I'm even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who's class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don't think it's fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.
I'm pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I'm also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I'm not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.
Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can't work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren't doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.
Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don't research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.
What is emotionally driven here?
And what do I have little understanding of?
You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.
Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.
Yeah I'm really starting to notice this exactly. It's sad to think that you either disengage or get unwarranted abuse hurlded towards you from every direction.
Maybe just getting off the internet entirely is the better option.
I liked your reference of the Overton window though haha
Gonna be honest, I'm not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I'm dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you're here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I'll talk to you, but I'm not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the "you probably call yourself a centrist" is the least significant part. You're wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can't fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There's lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
I assumed being centrist was already clear.
Mudwrestle? I'm here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don't want to discuss, fine by me. I didn't insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.
It sort of looks like you're broadly supportive of progressive causes, but don't support progressives in the actual "battles" that are being "fought". The clearest example is you being "Pro climate policies", but "against fossil fuel bans". Basically, you want things to get better, but you don't want things to be done to make them better. You want peace and quiet more than you progress, and you're willing to cede basically all current issues to regressives in order get it. Of course, if regressives win, they'll just want something else. And you'll cede that to them too.
In summary: you're pathetic.
Why is everyone so sharp with words here?
Should we stop pumping oil right this very minute? Do you think the world will be ready by 2050 to effectivly ban the sale of fossil fuel? We are yet to globally REDUCE carbon emissions, we've only decelerated so far and by a tiny amount. We are no where near ready to make the change. Unless you are willing to cause a massacre by shutting off the oil wells?
I want things to be better, you're right. And we all play a part in improving it. Right now I actually work in solar power infanstructure, is that pathetic? I vote against fossil fuels, and I am happy my country is cutting off gas and forcing people to be more electric.
I have helped contribute to some of these other issues I have metioned also and donate and invest in the future.
If you can draw a conclusion on a person so quickly and determine them to be pathetic, then what are you doing that makes you so special? Because, unfortunately, there is only so much a single person can do.
I'm judging you based on what you wrote about your position, which is all I do know about you, as well as what you chose to broadcast about yourself. And you paint yourself as a pathetic coward. You're absolutely pathetic, even without comparing you to anybody else.
And a big reason why we, as a species, have not made any progress on that front, is because of cowardice. Decisions are being made by people who stand to profit from fossil fuels, or are too scared of the economic consequences of combating fossil fuel dependency. Even though the transition itself would help mitigate those consequences, e.g. new jobs created for green energy development would offset jobs loss due to the necessary structural change.
Individual action, while laudable, will not help without systemic change, which you are too scared to advocate for.
So wait, what things make me a pathetic coward? Could you make a list?
And if it is only relating to fossil fuels, I'd wager 99.99% of the population doesn't want fossil fuels to be banned without replacements or serious societal change. Does that make 99.99% of people also pathetic cowards?
Then who goes first? Do we all agree at once to stop using? Or will militaries be exempted because you and I both know that no government is sabotaging their own power.
How would country's that export oil react do you think? Certain economies almost entirely depend on it, do they just cease to exist at once?
Would there be exceptions for agriculture or would some communities have to starve to death?
What about exemptions for building the replacing technology, or should we cease to use power at all and ration what remains?
There is more complexity to the issue you deem so simple to fix. If you had complete control of the world, how would you go about eliminating fossil fuels without being guillotined by 8 billion people?
It's not the fact that you don't have power, it's the how you'd yield it if you had it. Because even if you'd have power, you'd be too scared to yield it. Want to prove me wrong? Answer me this: How do you think global warming should be solved? Or outline how society could be improved in general? Up to now, you only told me how you'd not solve global warming. Only told me of things you'd avoid doing. Show me some things you'd do if you had power of an absolutist monarch.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Nah, this is just a contrarian contest.
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don't understand your comment.
Contradiction isn't nuance
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
Wow that's revealing more than you probably wanted.
What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?
Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.
Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.
Like I said elsewhere, you're competing with the internet for the most contrarian take. You revealed that trans athletes is not an issue you support because they are such a small group of the whole. But when you feel insecure or challenged about your "hot take" you do the contrarian line of "it's impossible for 100% of the people on the group to agree" as if this is a matter of opinion and not facts. As long as it is rooted in opinions, you are free to claim the most contrarian take possible.
First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.
Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.
Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?
And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.
You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?
It's frankly disgusting to compare this to people wanting free Netflix. I know that's not exactly what's happening here but I think we're loosing the plot.
Contrarian has a definition, it isn't relative to what my opinion is but the mainstream. The point is you're using the fact that your opinions are contrarian as evidence that your opinions are correct. It is funny.
I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they're incorrect because they are contrarian.
I don't understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?
You're yet to give any argument other than "those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian"
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're contrarian, most of the people here fall into the category. What I am saying is that using the fact that an opinion is contrarian is not evidence that it is correct.
And what I'm saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.
Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:
Let me put it another way. You are wrong in regards to trans participation in sports but not because you are being a contrarian. You are also wrong to use your contrarian stance to justify your opinion. Hopefully that clears things up.
Fill in the blank please.
For whatever reason we are not understanding each other. I don't think I can restate it any more clearly. I guess we just have to leave it at that.
Thank you for understanding!