3 ms·

Been spending the better part of this week with the "Yeah, but sh*t happens.." relatives. They don't deny what you say, but it doesn't seem plausible that we wi

Been spending the better part of this week with the "Yeah, but sh*t happens.." relatives. They don't deny what you say, but it doesn't seem plausible that we will do anything about it, so why worry? and why are you worked up? These are the same relatives whose house was destroyed by Sandy and they're still waiting on paperwork and final checks so they can own the rebuild free and clear.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
There's no reason to worry when you have enough clout to get a check. It's not the jerks with beach-front cottages that get flooded that are gonna get screwed here, it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed. When you have a safety net (in this case that safety net it enough combined clout to convince the government to bail you out) you have much less incentive to do anything about the problem.
- magduf 7y ago
  >it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed I don't really see the problem here. They're the ones voting for the leadership that denies climate change, they're the ones watching Fox News, they're the ones who go to churches where their pastors tell them that God loves rich people more and that climate change is a hoax. They're also the ones who refuse to give up their guns and vote for anyone who sides that way, and they're the ones who insist on driving huge, gas-guzzling vehicles everywhere (and then complaining about gas prices) instead of living in town, and want the rest of the country to finance their unsustainable rural lifestyle. I have no sympathy.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    You understand that a political characterization is just that, right? Actual human belief is nuanced. Just as all democrats are not green-deal loving firearm ownership rejecting hippies, not all republicans are church going fox news watching SUV drivers.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I realize that, but the Republican voters are much more similar to each other (though it varies a lot by region) than the Democrat voters are to each other. Basically, conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo (or perhaps go backwards to some halcyon time), and liberals are people who want a change to the status quo. This means that liberals are necessarily going to have different ideas about which direction they want to take, while conservatives are starting at the same place so they're necessarily going to agree more with each other. And from my decades of experience of having family in the South, yes, most of them really are church-going Fox News watching pickup truck drivers (the SUV drivers are more the suburbanites; we were talking about trailer park dwellers here).
      - BurningCycles 7y ago
        >Basically, conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo (or perhaps go backwards to some halcyon time), and liberals are people who want a change to the status quo. I believe you are confusing liberals with progressives. As for Fox News, as biased as they are, CBS, MSNBC and CNN are right up there with them. Mainstream media is a sad circus these days, not a single of the outlets are even remotely interested in facts or even a hint of objectivity, it's all about attacking 'the other side' by any means.
      - nindalf 7y ago
        > Republican voters are much more similar to each other Wow. Never saw a more perfect example of someone believing in Out-group Homogeneity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity)
      - rjf72 7y ago
        Here are some of the latest polls on gun control [1], abortion [2], and then a mixed general bag (same sex marriage, immigration, racial stuff) [3]. To save you the clicks on guns, for instance, there numbers for more/same/less strict for the republicans are 28/52/20. For democrats it's 80/15/4. For abortion legal/illegal it's 36/62 for republicans, 82/17 for democrats, etc. And the same is true on most if not all issues. This is also a relatively new thing. In times past the democratic party obviously had a general direction (much as the republican party does) but views were much more diverse. I'm just hopeful that this might eventually help us start taking the steps necessary for a multi-party system. I think the extreme elements of both parties are causing them, alongside the entire US political system, to implode. The 'world leader' in democracy remaining a two-party figment of the past is quite absurd in any case. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about... [2] - https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... [3] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about...
- munificent 7y ago
  > it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed It's more people in developing countries that are going to get screwed. Sucks for poor people in the US too (in part because the US is becoming more like a third-world country as economic disparity and corruption increase), but it's going to be devastating to coastal third-world countries like Bangladesh. My tin-foil hat theory lately is that the reason we are seeing a rise in fascism, nationalism, and closed borders lately is because those in power see a great tide of climate refuges coming in the future and don't want it to be their problem. They are treating the Earth like a zero sum game where if millions are to die, all that matters is that it isn't their country's millions.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    If you believe that the coordination problem required to prevent global climate change is intractable (how are we going to make Russia stop burning oil? Nigeria? Pakistan?), then taking steps to ensure that your country comes out of that alive makes sense. Or at least makes sense if you value people in the relatively standard human order (self ~ close family > far family > community > region > country > everyone else) - some people might have different steps in there, but it's almost always going to end with members of some in group being worth more than people not in that group. And if you say "but I'm not like that! I care about everyone equally!", then that's nice, but I don't believe you. (unless you're the kind of person who gives a large portion of their income to 3rd world charities - and I mean 50%+ there. Otherwise, aren't you demonstrating that you care about yourself more than random 3rd world children you've never met?)

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

There's no reason to worry when you have enough clout to get a check. It's not the jerks with beach-front cottages that get flooded that are gonna get screwed here, it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed. When you have a safety net (in this case that safety net it enough combined clout to convince the government to bail you out) you have much less incentive to do anything about the problem.

magduf 7y ago
>it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed I don't really see the problem here. They're the ones voting for the leadership that denies climate change, they're the ones watching Fox News, they're the ones who go to churches where their pastors tell them that God loves rich people more and that climate change is a hoax. They're also the ones who refuse to give up their guns and vote for anyone who sides that way, and they're the ones who insist on driving huge, gas-guzzling vehicles everywhere (and then complaining about gas prices) instead of living in town, and want the rest of the country to finance their unsustainable rural lifestyle. I have no sympathy.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  You understand that a political characterization is just that, right? Actual human belief is nuanced. Just as all democrats are not green-deal loving firearm ownership rejecting hippies, not all republicans are church going fox news watching SUV drivers.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I realize that, but the Republican voters are much more similar to each other (though it varies a lot by region) than the Democrat voters are to each other. Basically, conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo (or perhaps go backwards to some halcyon time), and liberals are people who want a change to the status quo. This means that liberals are necessarily going to have different ideas about which direction they want to take, while conservatives are starting at the same place so they're necessarily going to agree more with each other. And from my decades of experience of having family in the South, yes, most of them really are church-going Fox News watching pickup truck drivers (the SUV drivers are more the suburbanites; we were talking about trailer park dwellers here).
    - BurningCycles 7y ago
      >Basically, conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo (or perhaps go backwards to some halcyon time), and liberals are people who want a change to the status quo. I believe you are confusing liberals with progressives. As for Fox News, as biased as they are, CBS, MSNBC and CNN are right up there with them. Mainstream media is a sad circus these days, not a single of the outlets are even remotely interested in facts or even a hint of objectivity, it's all about attacking 'the other side' by any means.
    - nindalf 7y ago
      > Republican voters are much more similar to each other Wow. Never saw a more perfect example of someone believing in Out-group Homogeneity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity)
    - rjf72 7y ago
      Here are some of the latest polls on gun control [1], abortion [2], and then a mixed general bag (same sex marriage, immigration, racial stuff) [3]. To save you the clicks on guns, for instance, there numbers for more/same/less strict for the republicans are 28/52/20. For democrats it's 80/15/4. For abortion legal/illegal it's 36/62 for republicans, 82/17 for democrats, etc. And the same is true on most if not all issues. This is also a relatively new thing. In times past the democratic party obviously had a general direction (much as the republican party does) but views were much more diverse. I'm just hopeful that this might eventually help us start taking the steps necessary for a multi-party system. I think the extreme elements of both parties are causing them, alongside the entire US political system, to implode. The 'world leader' in democracy remaining a two-party figment of the past is quite absurd in any case. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about... [2] - https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... [3] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/26/facts-about...
munificent 7y ago
> it's the people who's trailers are blown away who will be screwed It's more people in developing countries that are going to get screwed. Sucks for poor people in the US too (in part because the US is becoming more like a third-world country as economic disparity and corruption increase), but it's going to be devastating to coastal third-world countries like Bangladesh. My tin-foil hat theory lately is that the reason we are seeing a rise in fascism, nationalism, and closed borders lately is because those in power see a great tide of climate refuges coming in the future and don't want it to be their problem. They are treating the Earth like a zero sum game where if millions are to die, all that matters is that it isn't their country's millions.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  If you believe that the coordination problem required to prevent global climate change is intractable (how are we going to make Russia stop burning oil? Nigeria? Pakistan?), then taking steps to ensure that your country comes out of that alive makes sense. Or at least makes sense if you value people in the relatively standard human order (self ~ close family > far family > community > region > country > everyone else) - some people might have different steps in there, but it's almost always going to end with members of some in group being worth more than people not in that group. And if you say "but I'm not like that! I care about everyone equally!", then that's nice, but I don't believe you. (unless you're the kind of person who gives a large portion of their income to 3rd world charities - and I mean 50%+ there. Otherwise, aren't you demonstrating that you care about yourself more than random 3rd world children you've never met?)