3 ms·

Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly. I'm not going to respond to all of the points that

by _ktx2 4y ago

Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly. I'm not going to respond to all of the points that you raised that I think are false or misleading, but I'll respond to some. > There's a lot of miles of power lines and roads for what is, in the end, maybe 10k people in that county outside the cities/towns. Power plants are (mostly) created in rural areas, so your argument is a bit backwards: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-every-power-plant-in-the-united-states/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-every-power-plant-in... Your story that the last miles are costing us an arm and leg don't really hold up to comprehensive analysis: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-u-s-electric-grids-cost-in-2-charts/#:~:text=First%2C%20administrative%20costs%20are%20more%20than%20a%20third,per%20kWh%20have%20increased%20significantly%20in%20recent%20years https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-u-s-elec.... The tldr of this is that the higher number of connections to the energy grid, the higher the cost of the grid. It doesn't really matter how you distribute them. > But we don't need to be encouraging "lifestyle ruralism". That's extremely infrastructure-heavy and it's absolutely true that people living in, say, Mikado MI (pop 899) or along one of the state highways out there are using disproportionate amount of infrastructure funding relative to the number of actual people there. I grew up near rural areas and lived in one for a bit. I don't know what "infrastructure heavy" you're talking about. My water was drawn from a well into a community water storage tank that was then pumped to the local community. This was repeated all through that area. Water, in this case, was a co-op as well as energy. Sewage was done on-site; I had an aerobic septic system. For all intents and purposes, with respect to the angle of your argument, the footprint of my town was miniscule compared to a city. More anecdotally, when I worked for a water startup we had a way easier time getting into rural areas because many of them had never had public water infrastructure.

paulmd 4y ago
> classless Uncivil, violates site rules. You can express yourself without putdowns. > I'm not going to respond to all of the points that you raised that I think are false or misleading, but I'll respond to some. Eh, rather dismissive yourself. > I grew up near rural areas and lived in one for a bit. I don't know what "infrastructure heavy" you're talking about. How many miles of roads and power lines in your rural area, divided across how many people? Again, I very clearly expressed what I meant by "infrastructure heavy", but with you self-admittedly not really being a full and fair participant in the discussion, I can see why you might have some confusion. > Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly. The saying goes that people use the "downvote" like a "disagree" button and when it comes to political debates people use the "flag" button like an "I really really disagree" button. If I don't see a particular reason a post is flagged then yeah, I don't really have a problem with recreating it. I shouldn't be suppressed by average users for expressing a well-reasoned argument they disagree with, nor censured for a single disagreeable line. Even you yourself cannot avoid technical violations of the site rules, your comment itself is violating the same rules to the same extent as mine. Realistically, that rule is a "please", as I've been repeatedly told when I point out violations of it, and virtually every comment has something that someone can be offended about. I'm not going out and attacking people here, it's just a "jaywalking" violation that everyone does and people fall back on when they're losing an argument. The strictest interpretation of the rule essentially forbids any sort of "active-voice" argument that's strong enough to make a positive point (because someone can ALWAYS find be offended by any positive point) and that's incredibly harmful to discourse. If you have a problem, call it out specifically, or get dang, otherwise if people don't bother replying and are just using flags as a way to suppress opinions they disagree with then yeah, I don't really care and I'm not going to be suppressed just because of some meta-gaming from people who disagree with me so little that they can't even reply. Similarly, I find your "won't respond to the comment because I disagree with it" against the spirit of this community and doesn't belong here either. If you have nothing to say, don't post at all, but "cheerleading" is not constructive or beneficial to the discourse here at all. Spirit of the rules vs text of the rules, my fellow. Your comment violates the textual rules. Actually your post attacks me as an individual, so in that sense it's really kinda worse, isn't it? And on the flip side, I was dismissive of an argument in a single line of a 3000 character comment. Oh no.
- kodah 4y ago
  > Similarly, I find your "won't respond to the comment because I disagree with it" against the spirit of this community... Not what I said, I was just clarifying I disagree with most of what you said but I'm only going to respond to a few points. I didn't have time to respond to each of them because my lunch period was ending soon. On top of that, nobody here owes you some full-scale rebuttal to a long reply; I disagree that it's part of the guidelines. I'm happy to read them again though. You're right, maybe I shouldn't have called it out. Understand that what you're callously calling a "lifestyle" is a life I lived, not out of a "lifestyle" choice but because I wasn't saving any money. I lived in a trailer; not exactly a lifestyle choice. Mixed with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations, you're right - I probably wasn't the person to respond to this without two sentences of emotion.

by _ktx2 4y ago

paulmd 4y ago

> classless Uncivil, violates site rules. You can express yourself without putdowns. > I'm not going to respond to all of the points that you raised that I think are false or misleading, but I'll respond to some. Eh, rather dismissive yourself. > I grew up near rural areas and lived in one for a bit. I don't know what "infrastructure heavy" you're talking about. How many miles of roads and power lines in your rural area, divided across how many people? Again, I very clearly expressed what I meant by "infrastructure heavy", but with you self-admittedly not really being a full and fair participant in the discussion, I can see why you might have some confusion. > Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly. The saying goes that people use the "downvote" like a "disagree" button and when it comes to political debates people use the "flag" button like an "I really really disagree" button. If I don't see a particular reason a post is flagged then yeah, I don't really have a problem with recreating it. I shouldn't be suppressed by average users for expressing a well-reasoned argument they disagree with, nor censured for a single disagreeable line. Even you yourself cannot avoid technical violations of the site rules, your comment itself is violating the same rules to the same extent as mine. Realistically, that rule is a "please", as I've been repeatedly told when I point out violations of it, and virtually every comment has something that someone can be offended about. I'm not going out and attacking people here, it's just a "jaywalking" violation that everyone does and people fall back on when they're losing an argument. The strictest interpretation of the rule essentially forbids any sort of "active-voice" argument that's strong enough to make a positive point (because someone can ALWAYS find be offended by any positive point) and that's incredibly harmful to discourse. If you have a problem, call it out specifically, or get dang, otherwise if people don't bother replying and are just using flags as a way to suppress opinions they disagree with then yeah, I don't really care and I'm not going to be suppressed just because of some meta-gaming from people who disagree with me so little that they can't even reply. Similarly, I find your "won't respond to the comment because I disagree with it" against the spirit of this community and doesn't belong here either. If you have nothing to say, don't post at all, but "cheerleading" is not constructive or beneficial to the discourse here at all. Spirit of the rules vs text of the rules, my fellow. Your comment violates the textual rules. Actually your post attacks me as an individual, so in that sense it's really kinda worse, isn't it? And on the flip side, I was dismissive of an argument in a single line of a 3000 character comment. Oh no.

kodah 4y ago
> Similarly, I find your "won't respond to the comment because I disagree with it" against the spirit of this community... Not what I said, I was just clarifying I disagree with most of what you said but I'm only going to respond to a few points. I didn't have time to respond to each of them because my lunch period was ending soon. On top of that, nobody here owes you some full-scale rebuttal to a long reply; I disagree that it's part of the guidelines. I'm happy to read them again though. You're right, maybe I shouldn't have called it out. Understand that what you're callously calling a "lifestyle" is a life I lived, not out of a "lifestyle" choice but because I wasn't saving any money. I lived in a trailer; not exactly a lifestyle choice. Mixed with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations, you're right - I probably wasn't the person to respond to this without two sentences of emotion.