6 ms·

Seriously?? Are you that ignorant and bigoted? Have you ever lived here? It's clear you have _zero_ knowledge of the area. What about SF or Seattle? The ba

by jofer 6y ago

Seriously?? Are you that ignorant and bigoted? Have you ever lived here? It's clear you have _zero_ knowledge of the area. What about SF or Seattle? The bay area is non-stop superfund sites, and unlike the gulf coast, there's _zero_ involvement from the companies that created the mess. Here, we have a few, but with _heavy_ mitigation from the companies involved. Y'all have absurd earthquake, fire, landslide, and drought risk. Let's turn that around... How about: "Evacuate the west coast. No one should be allowed to live in California, Oregon, or Washington. It's just a drain on taxpayers."

fibers 6y ago
> Seriously?? Are you that ignorant and bigoted? I don't think you can be bigoted against a region.
- jofer 6y ago
  Given the comments I've repeatedly received due to my accent, I'd disagree. I'm a bit sick of being called an "ignorant hick" or a "fucking stupid redneck" just because everyone can tell where I grew up if they hear me speak. Yeah, I can be outspoken, but being told that because I'm disagreeing about something technical in a professional setting really gets under my skin, and it happens a lot. People on the east/west coast really do hold it against you if you're not from the east or west coast.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Seconded, and I don't have much of an accent at all (especially if I'm focusing on it). Even without that, east- and west-coast natives hear I'm from Texas and jump to the "stupid redneck" thing.
    - achenatx 6y ago
      I just wanted to corroborate this. Im originally from up north and have lived in texas for over 30 years and my brain still interprets a southern accent as ignorant/lack of education. I still have cognitive dissonance when I hear rocket scientists from nasa (houston) with southern accents.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Agreed. I grew up in the PNW, but in a predominantly black neighborhood. I married somebody who was from a very white new england suburb. They were downright intolerant of folks with a southern accent and literally called them stupid (the most memorable was an expert scientist being interviewed on NPR). It took several years of me bringing up that bigotry for them to come around and try to work on it.
  - Steltek 6y ago
    It's odd to call foul in a thread about climate change disasters when Texas politicians continue to deny that it even exists. Or to reject Federal aid to coastal states but beg for relief yourselves after Harvey. "Hick" is a supremely ignorant word to use but "hypocrite" seems accurate for the good ole' Republic of Texas.
    - jofer 6y ago
      And you assume we're all the same? All the cities in Texas are solidly democratic, fwiw. State politics are controlled by rural counties, similar to the US as a whole.
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        Not just Texas. When most of my friends were freaking out after the 2016 election I spent a bunch of time drilling down into the detailed election results. My take, there are no red states/blue states. The divide is totally 'rural' / 'urban'. I put scare quotes because I think the definition is local and fungible. There are towns of 100,000 in New York that voted 'red' and little cities in places like Montana that voted 'blue'
      - Steltek 6y ago
        Sure but pretty much all cities are solidly blue unless you look at Oklahoma or Kansas or something like that. The Texas oil industry has a unique place in skewing the discussion on climate change. Even if TX flipped blue, it will be hard to dislodge the prevailing denialism. Insert Upton Sinclair quote here. That all said, I'm sorry you get roped into the same crowd pushing for Bible study and creationism in public schools. Identity and politics are viewed as inseparable these days.
adsjhdashkj 6y ago
I dunno, it does seem reasonable to me. Including your (albeit too wide) statement. I refuse to live in a flood plain. Why would you? Not only do i not want my house to be destroyed, but the insurance alone is a good incentive to not live there. If fire repeatedly pops up in my neighborhood i'll do the same thing, move. Why wouldn't you? If the insurance would be insane because statistically it's likely to repeatedly happen why should taxpayers fund that sinkhole? I'm normally super liberal with taxes, but there has to be a balance. I believe in "free" healthcare, but we can't promote bad health patterns, as it would be a needless drain on the healthcare costs. Likewise i'd support taxpayers covering these types of disasters, but if you know the area is insanely prone to disasters why should the taxpayers fund it? You're playing the victim card too hard mate. I get your point, but i don't think it's a "region bigot" issue here. Yes, people should move out of fire prone areas, why on earth would you think otherwise?
- jofer 6y ago
  By the logic you'd have to use to claim all of this area is "in a flood plain and uninhabitable", you'd have to apply the same to virtually every other city in the US. The flood plains mostly aren't inhabited here. (Yes, there are some exceptions.) The area isn't what everyone seems to think it is.
  - adsjhdashkj 6y ago
    I'm not talking about any specific location. Just the idea that it's some bigoted idea to say that, if year after year an area is burned to the ground, we shouldn't spend taxpayers dollars to fund a disaster area. If insurance can calculate costs and decide what is too expensive to insure, we can too. That's all.
    - jofer 6y ago
      Yeah, but the original was _very_ much targeted at a specific region. First off, the idea that this entire area is all in a floodplain or is repeatedly being rebuilt is just plain false. It ain't. End of story. The bigotry comment is due to the history of the region. Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here. Yes, I'm a white guy. Yes, I'm still bringing it up. Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington. Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward") Maybe you don't, but here, it's a big deal. Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local). It's the reason people were _so_ pissed off about the arguments that big swaths of New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. It's why "we will rebuild" was such a rallying cry. And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.
29athrowaway 6y ago
Following the same logic, we should evacuate all the states that depend on the Ogallala aquifer, an aquifer that will be pumped dry in a couple of decades from now. Those states will become a desert: South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  The aquifer is mostly being pumped for agriculture, and there aren't any major cities over it. https://media.ruralradio.co/wordpress/2016/03/Ogallala-Aquifer.jpg https://media.ruralradio.co/wordpress/2016/03/Ogallala-Aquif... It also won't necessarily be "desert" when the aquifer is pumped dry. Best case, it looks more like the great plains and less like corn fields. Cheyenne gets 17 inches of rain per year, Amarillo gets 20 inches, so neither would be a desert.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    I think you may be underestimating the impact. Without the aquifer you cannot sustain the current crop yield, livestock headcount, many jobs would be impacted, and cost of living will rise. These phenomenons can have a cascading impact on other sectors of the economy... not only in the states sitting on top of the aquifer, but the entire country. Perhaps it will not be a literal desert, but it will be a desert for the purposes of agriculture.

by jofer 6y ago

fibers 6y ago

> Seriously?? Are you that ignorant and bigoted? I don't think you can be bigoted against a region.

jofer 6y ago
Given the comments I've repeatedly received due to my accent, I'd disagree. I'm a bit sick of being called an "ignorant hick" or a "fucking stupid redneck" just because everyone can tell where I grew up if they hear me speak. Yeah, I can be outspoken, but being told that because I'm disagreeing about something technical in a professional setting really gets under my skin, and it happens a lot. People on the east/west coast really do hold it against you if you're not from the east or west coast.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Seconded, and I don't have much of an accent at all (especially if I'm focusing on it). Even without that, east- and west-coast natives hear I'm from Texas and jump to the "stupid redneck" thing.
  - achenatx 6y ago
    I just wanted to corroborate this. Im originally from up north and have lived in texas for over 30 years and my brain still interprets a southern accent as ignorant/lack of education. I still have cognitive dissonance when I hear rocket scientists from nasa (houston) with southern accents.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Agreed. I grew up in the PNW, but in a predominantly black neighborhood. I married somebody who was from a very white new england suburb. They were downright intolerant of folks with a southern accent and literally called them stupid (the most memorable was an expert scientist being interviewed on NPR). It took several years of me bringing up that bigotry for them to come around and try to work on it.
- Steltek 6y ago
  It's odd to call foul in a thread about climate change disasters when Texas politicians continue to deny that it even exists. Or to reject Federal aid to coastal states but beg for relief yourselves after Harvey. "Hick" is a supremely ignorant word to use but "hypocrite" seems accurate for the good ole' Republic of Texas.
  - jofer 6y ago
    And you assume we're all the same? All the cities in Texas are solidly democratic, fwiw. State politics are controlled by rural counties, similar to the US as a whole.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      Not just Texas. When most of my friends were freaking out after the 2016 election I spent a bunch of time drilling down into the detailed election results. My take, there are no red states/blue states. The divide is totally 'rural' / 'urban'. I put scare quotes because I think the definition is local and fungible. There are towns of 100,000 in New York that voted 'red' and little cities in places like Montana that voted 'blue'
    - Steltek 6y ago
      Sure but pretty much all cities are solidly blue unless you look at Oklahoma or Kansas or something like that. The Texas oil industry has a unique place in skewing the discussion on climate change. Even if TX flipped blue, it will be hard to dislodge the prevailing denialism. Insert Upton Sinclair quote here. That all said, I'm sorry you get roped into the same crowd pushing for Bible study and creationism in public schools. Identity and politics are viewed as inseparable these days.

adsjhdashkj 6y ago

I dunno, it does seem reasonable to me. Including your (albeit too wide) statement. I refuse to live in a flood plain. Why would you? Not only do i not want my house to be destroyed, but the insurance alone is a good incentive to not live there. If fire repeatedly pops up in my neighborhood i'll do the same thing, move. Why wouldn't you? If the insurance would be insane because statistically it's likely to repeatedly happen why should taxpayers fund that sinkhole? I'm normally super liberal with taxes, but there has to be a balance. I believe in "free" healthcare, but we can't promote bad health patterns, as it would be a needless drain on the healthcare costs. Likewise i'd support taxpayers covering these types of disasters, but if you know the area is insanely prone to disasters why should the taxpayers fund it? You're playing the victim card too hard mate. I get your point, but i don't think it's a "region bigot" issue here. Yes, people should move out of fire prone areas, why on earth would you think otherwise?

jofer 6y ago
By the logic you'd have to use to claim all of this area is "in a flood plain and uninhabitable", you'd have to apply the same to virtually every other city in the US. The flood plains mostly aren't inhabited here. (Yes, there are some exceptions.) The area isn't what everyone seems to think it is.
- adsjhdashkj 6y ago
  I'm not talking about any specific location. Just the idea that it's some bigoted idea to say that, if year after year an area is burned to the ground, we shouldn't spend taxpayers dollars to fund a disaster area. If insurance can calculate costs and decide what is too expensive to insure, we can too. That's all.
  - jofer 6y ago
    Yeah, but the original was _very_ much targeted at a specific region. First off, the idea that this entire area is all in a floodplain or is repeatedly being rebuilt is just plain false. It ain't. End of story. The bigotry comment is due to the history of the region. Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here. Yes, I'm a white guy. Yes, I'm still bringing it up. Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington. Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward") Maybe you don't, but here, it's a big deal. Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local). It's the reason people were _so_ pissed off about the arguments that big swaths of New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. It's why "we will rebuild" was such a rallying cry. And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.

29athrowaway 6y ago

Following the same logic, we should evacuate all the states that depend on the Ogallala aquifer, an aquifer that will be pumped dry in a couple of decades from now. Those states will become a desert: South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico.

dehrmann 6y ago
The aquifer is mostly being pumped for agriculture, and there aren't any major cities over it. https://media.ruralradio.co/wordpress/2016/03/Ogallala-Aquifer.jpg https://media.ruralradio.co/wordpress/2016/03/Ogallala-Aquif... It also won't necessarily be "desert" when the aquifer is pumped dry. Best case, it looks more like the great plains and less like corn fields. Cheyenne gets 17 inches of rain per year, Amarillo gets 20 inches, so neither would be a desert.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  I think you may be underestimating the impact. Without the aquifer you cannot sustain the current crop yield, livestock headcount, many jobs would be impacted, and cost of living will rise. These phenomenons can have a cascading impact on other sectors of the economy... not only in the states sitting on top of the aquifer, but the entire country. Perhaps it will not be a literal desert, but it will be a desert for the purposes of agriculture.