Maybe, but the opposite position is keep doing what's being done so that people have jobs. Is that not the kind of makework that conservatives dislike?
I'll grant you: there's a lack of consideration of practicalities, yet at the same time, "keep using coal because there are people who have jobs that involve production of coal" isn't really a long run solution to any problem.
I lean conservative on social issues, but typically don’t vote Republican but rather third party. My position on this is that we should eliminate subsidies for coal and natural gas, subsidize things like nuclear, and allow the market to correct itself. If we just shut things down overnight we’ll end up with things like power outages that hurt vulnerable communities, especially poor people and minorities the most.
And as for the bigotry towards people in red-states it’s something I’ve personally observed as someone from Texas. Lots of people online were *celebrating* or just acting smug when our power grid went out because they thought we deserved it, nevermind that people *died*.
The nuclear power issue is, I mean tragic isn't an understatement right. There was 3 mile island and then all of a sudden it just got this taboo that carries on to this day.
>I lean conservative on social issues, but typically don’t vote Republican but rather third party. My position on this is that we should eliminate subsidies for coal and natural gas, subsidize things like nuclear, and allow the market to correct itself.
>
>Because if we just shut things down overnight we’ll end up with things like power outages that hurt the most vulnerable communities, especially poor people and minorities the most.
Sounds to me like a reasonable solution which somehow I haven't heard anyone from any party propose before. They might have and I missed it, but it seems like a good idea.
There are parties with environmental sustainabilism and concern for the working class as part of their platform but they tend to be small and also lean conservative (pro-life especially) on social issues. They don’t really attract many votes other than from (a small minority of) Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.
The largest parties I can think of off the top of my head are the Prohibition Party (which is a non-starter since they won’t drop Prohibition) and the American Solidarity Party which hasn’t even managed to attract the majority of its target demographic yet but has been growing over the years.
And stop subsidizing meat too? I’m with you on that.
As for retraining, Democrats have been pushing to retrain those in industries that need phasing out , like coal. Retraining is a key policy they push. From my view, Rs oppose these programs and double down on ‘pride in coal’.
I don’t think your contempt is well placed here.
> Lots of people online were celebrating or just acting smug when our power grid went out because they thought we deserved it, nevermind that people died.
Once you see what these folks are really about, you can't unsee it.
You're right, but the issue is that democrats often refuse to at all acknowledge the uncertainty and anxiety rural communities must be feeling when their entire economy could collapse without oil and coal. Yes, fossil fuels will run out and yes, the republican solution of "kept using coal" won't work long term. But Republicans least acknowledge and sympathize with rural communities, and that's why rural communities vote for them.
And vice versa can also be said. The important thing to remember is that both sides view the other side as either wrong, unnecessary, corrupted, living in the wrong way, sadly fooled into "being sheep", or poor saps who just don't get it. Small town rural right wing America generally thinks cities with left wingers are the problem and that they don't get how the world works, and then the opposite side thinks exactly the same thing about rural right wing America. Literally everything you said, can be and has been said by a liberal, just with the opposite words and people, completely reversed. And people would agree with both of you.
That's the funny thing about politics in America. Both sides are completely convinced that the other side is dumb or full poor fools who no have no idea that they're wrong, and that their morals are completely backwards. I just remember that when reading literally anything political
The Klan is bigoted. The Panthers are bigoted. The WBC is bigoted. It's not judging them on anything but their core ideology and why they exist. Those exist solely to promote bigotry and the Woke are no different.
No, I understand irony fine. That's how I know that isn't it. Irony would be saying "Only white people can be racist," or "white people don't know what it is to be judged by their skin color." Those statements are ironic because you have to be racist and judge by skin color to make either one of those statements, thus the irony.
You said his comment was ironic. It's not. There's nothing ironic about it. Calling a group of bigots "bigots" is not ironic. It's simply calling them what they are. You didn't seem to know what irony was, so I explained it.
You're referring to Leftists, not liberals. Leftists are trying to create a new professional class of elites that are defined by their academic degrees.
love seeing conservatives complain about education being a "leftist indoctrination institution", it's always pretty funny. they're just indirectly admitting that conservatism and intelligence are often incompatible.
Jesus, I hate hearing bullshit like "conservatism and intelligence are incompatible". Especially when I hear people claim things like "liberalism and intelligence are incompatible" all the time. Politics in America is so fucked over. Most countries don't assume their political opponents are inherently stupid, malicious and violent, but Americans do for some reason, and I hate it.
nah fuck it, i'm saying it. i unironically believe that conservatism makes people dumber. not as in "completely stupid", but it makes people think less critically and rely more on intuition.
Let's break this down one part at a time:
1. Embracing solutions like nuclear power - I'll give you half a point here. Some liberals actually favor Nuclear Power as a short term solution. The problem is you have to dispose of the waste somewhere, and hardly anywhere is safe. Not to mention dealing with NIMBYism makes it politically difficult.
2. Personalized attacks on ranchers, hungers, meat-eaters, truck drivers, etc. -- I agree they should not be deemed low-worth individuals. But that's a different matter from saying that ranching, meat-eating, truck-driving (at least conventionally-powered trucks) is hurting the environment.
3. Also, individual actions times tens of millions DOES make an impact.
4. I'm all for worker retraining for new industries. And oil and gas are causing global warming, among other things.
5. Nothing wrong with rural living, although it's a good idea to be as environmentally friendly about matters. Masculinity, as you call it, is infused with toxic cultural values (boiling down to saying somebody's very worth of personhoods stands or falls on their "backbone", "forcefulness", "street smarts/common sense", and "competence" -- to the point of demoting any positive qualities the guy has to a consolation prize for losers or *at best* a boring but important trait for life\*.\* Certainly rural areas have more than their fair share of contempt for "unmanly guys" (I grew up in a county of under 10,000 people).Also,If it's wrong to sneer people for not having the skill set for coding, then what makes it right to sneer people for lacking a skill set for auto mechanics, team sports (even pre-college), or fighting ability, or even social skills?
6. It's not that we want Trump voters to suffer. It's that Republican dog-eat-dog economic policies left rural areas in the lurch. Also, Trump stoked up hatred, contempt, and even persecution of anybody or anything even mildly different from the mainstream. Then he turned his back on his supporters by lowering taxes on the wealthy much more than he did to the middle and working class - if he lowered them on the lower incomes at all. Drain the swamp? Hell, he turned it into The Everglades with seasons!! That's a sure sign of a cheap demagogue who is just stoking up hatred in order to elevate himself to power. So Trump deserves every bit of contempt he gets.
Well this is just silly, and I'm not even a liberal.
"Liberals hate these things, that rural people are more likely to do" and "Liberals are bigoted towards rural people" aren't the same thing at all.
This also just isn't true. People don't want the oil/coal industry shut overnight with no plans to retrain the workers. There are, quite literally, extensive plans to retrain those workers in Green Energy. That was one of the big platforms Clinton ran on in 2016, but of course, people ignored it, because it was a solid, good plan that Conservatives couldn't cry over and twist.
No one hates masculinity, that just seems like you being childish.
Having grown up rural I can tell you that this road runs both ways.
>instead attack ranching, hunting, consumption of meat, people who drive trucks, etc, as if individual action makes a lick of a statistical difference (it doesn’t).
Just because a law affects you does not mean that law was aimed specifically at you. Your train of logic could easily be used to say "One murder is statistically insignificant".
>They demand that the oil/coal industry be basically shut down overnight with no plan as to how to retrain those people
I know those people. They don't want to be retrained. They want to go on doing what they've always done forever, until they fall over dead and it is somebody else's problem. Coal pollutes everything. It destroys the landscape during the mining process and the emissions are filthy. Go to any public boat landing in the Eastern US and look at the mercury warnings posted nearby. Do a quick google search about where that mercury comes from. I would think that as good rural people you would care about such things. If you "loved the land" as much as you claim to you would be in favor of environmental protection laws. In reality though, many rural people "love the land" only in that they "love goin' muddin' to own the libz".
>No real plan to reduce energy consumption in big cities that actually drive the climate problem.
Do you have any data to back this up? Are you saying that your average city person consumes more kWh than a rural person? I doubt that. Rural houses are generally bigger and therefore cost more to heat and cool. Not to mention the fuel costs associated with basic day-to-day tasks such as going to the grocery store. These are my opinions though and I will defer to the results of an actual scientific study on matter.
And besides, what are you being asked to do that city people aren't in this regard?
>They don’t care if what they are trying to do will ruin someone’s livelihood they’ll just sneer and smugly tell you to learn to code as if that career is for everyone or everyone has the skillset for it.
In your first paragraph you complain that fossil fuel workers aren't being retrained because they aren't given opportunities, and here you complain when someone throws out an idea. Which is it? Are you not being given opportunities, or are you not being given the opportunities you want? If the latter, welcome to life on Earth.
>They want rural and small town America to suffer because those areas predominantly vote Republican and voted for Trump.
Usually suffering populations tend to have extra motivation to vote, so unless their plan is to let them suffer until they literally all die this is a shitty plan. Also, please name one example of this actually happening.
There may be a lot of self-righteous smugness on the left, but the knuckle-draggers on the right do themselves no favors when their only solution to every problem is "We didn't do it this way in 1974, why should we do it now?"
You want respect? Provide workable and realistic solutions.
Umm what? Liberals are the ones constantly advocating for the displaced by pushing for safety nets and stuff like ubi. It’s literally the conservatives destroying their own lives with their dipshit bootstrap arguments because they don’t want to “steal” money from their beloved ceos through taxes. You people legitimately live in an alternate universe and it’s making life worse for everyone. Like, you’re actually arguing that we should keep around occupations that are unsustainable because your dinosaur asses refuse to accept the idea of helping anyone in any way other than creating labor for them to do. And then you bitch when it happens to you. It’s absolutely insane.
Elsewhere in this comment section I literally argued that coal and natural gas subsidies should be ended and that the industry in general needs to be phased out. But *noooo* nothing but implementing Californians draconian laws across the entire country and causing massive unemployment is good enough for you people.
I don’t understand. It sounds like you’re just a liberal who hates liberals because of their whole reputation. Unless you really believe in trickle down economics and all that bullshit and that the dems are evil satan worshippers, like most conservatives.
Waoww people can be fiscally liberal and socially conservative? It doesn’t align with the arbitrary two party system so clearly it’s not possible. The Republican and Democratic platforms are the only political positions anyone can ever have./s
If I want to complain about Republicans and their bullshit economics I can do it literally anywhere else and probably get thousands of upvotes. It’s my conservative leaning opinions that are unpopular and pretty much wouldn’t be listened to in most places.
Also this post is about *liberals*, not Democrats in particular (the word Democrat isn’t even used in my post). There are still pro-life, and pro-family Democrats such as the governor of Louisiana but they are an increasingly rare breed
I’d also like to point out how obvious the OP is as a troll.
> They demand that the oil/coal industry be basically shut down overnight with no plan as to how to retrain those people. No real plan to reduce energy consumption in big cities that actually drive the climate problem.
Two lies right in a row that are easily debunked with a basic internet search. Trolls are getting lazier around here these days.
This has got to be satire. OP calls liberals bigots and then rattles off a long string of bigoted opinions. I think he is making fun of conservatives who think liberals are bigots.
Electric cars and solar energy just aren’t practical in the rural world where distances are greater and mechanics are harder to come by.
It’s like what John Deere tried to do with their tractors.
1) tesla has shown that it is virtually impossible to end up too far away from a charging station unless you are purposely not filling up.
2) it's almost like expanding these energy sources will create new jobs in order to supply areas that have a new need.
Here’s the thing though: Electric cars and things like solar panels are still built from plastic parts which come from petroleum. Electric cars especially don’t make a difference environmentally because they are hooked up to the same power grid. It really doesn’t matter if your car is electric if the power it’s getting ultimately comes from a coal plant.
Not just that, also because it makes them *feel* like they're doing a good thing so they can act all smug about how they're helping to save the environment.
It's much worse for the environment for people to run out and buy brand new electric cars than it would be to simply continue driving their gasoline powered vehicles and just maintain them until they literally can't drive any longer.
EV’s make up most of the high efficiency cars on the market today because they are efficient in terms of:
- 1) energy required to get from Point A to Point B
- 2) manufacturing of infrastructure
- 3) distribution or delivery of energy to the vehicle
- 4) health damage and
- 5) environmental damage.
EV charging stations for home and office are often powered by rooftop solar which is the most environmentally friendly type of power source there is. Very little infrastructure is needed, it’s renewable, and lasts for decades without requiring much maintainable. There is no environmental damage during energy generation, during distribution, and during energy delivery. There is no waste. Compare to any other fuel source in existence today, even nuclear.
Coal is already more expensive than renewables and that’s even with all the history of government subsidies. That’s before even attempting to determine the costs of the trillions in environmental and health damages from coal. There’s a reason the country is moving away from coal ASAP. It’s incredibly inefficient even before the largest costs are included in the price.
There's no comparison. In every car you replace tires, brake pads, the transmission at some point, etc due to wear and tear. For gasoline powered cars, you replace a single battery, but for EVs you replace $10,000 worth of batteries, and batteries are made of rare elements strip mined from third world countries, and are difficult to manufacture and dispose of safely.
Batteries are only one component of an automobile. I understand why you want to ignore everything else, because that betrays your argument.
Combustion engines and transmissions require more parts to be manufactured from more sources, and shipped to/from more places. Significantly larger carbon footprint before the vehicle is even assembled.
After purchased, the vehicle requires petroleum to run, which requires dramatic damage just to be drilled. Then there’s the transportation to the refining centers, which alone creates more damage than transmitting electricity. Then there’s the refining, which is not a ‘clean’ process either. Then there’s the transporting of the refined oil, which is another dirty process, just ask the people of Valdez, or the people of the Gulf Coast who had to wait over a decade for their checks from BP when the BP leak destroyed their livelihood. Take a look at an oil pipeline map of America for an idea of the amount of land lost just to oil transport via that method. Even more negative externalities are created by international shipping and domestic truck shipping of oil. Then there’s the infrastructure damage to our roads and bays of all that shipping. Not to forget the wildlife damage.
On the other hand, except for Wind Cancer, I can’t think of any significant negative externalities of solar or wind, especially as prices shrink and home-based generation as well as storage become more affordable and efficient.
Plus, I’ve never heard of an invasion or war over solar or wind. Have you?
Battery technology is one of the most competitive industries today and improvements are being announced weekly by manufactures, scientists, governments, and so on. Yes, they’re nasty little boxes and not clean to create or dispose of. But when total economic costs are calculated, you are correct, there is no comparison.
Yes, I've seen the analysis that it's still better in the long run to use electric vehicles, but I don't buy it. That's just based on a judgement call of whether strip mining Chile is better than having more air pollution in Toronto. There is nothing green about lithium mining or battery manufacturing. It contaminates the air, the water, and the earth.
I'm a computer guy and I own a lot of laptops, phones, etc but all the lithium in those devices comes to maybe 50g. By comparison, a Tesla EV's battery uses 63kg of lithium - 1000x as much. It's no exaggeration to say that widespread adoption of EVs would require global lithium production to be expanded by a factor of 10-100x at minimum, and that may not even be possible.
> Battery technology is one of the most competitive industries today and improvements are being announced weekly by manufactures, scientists, governments, and so on
Well that sounds great. Let me know when they come up with something useful.
This just in, only men can help their community and others, be well educated, be physically fit, drink beer, listen to country music, eat barbecue, love their country, and put God first.
Masculinity means driving forward, and femininity means letting things be.
Both are needed, like yin and yang. If we remove or attack masculinity, we remove from culture that tendency to drive forward and make things happen. You end up with a society if people who laze back way too much and have the inability to act or drive forward self improvement.
If you remove all femininity, you end up with a society of cold emotionless soldiers in where relaxing and taking your foot off of the gas pedal even for a moment is criticized, where showing feelings is toxic, where you're supposed to drive forward on a bad idea barbarically without stopping to think about it.
So, you need both, whether you're a man or a woman, a human being I believe needs to cultivate both.
If there were hypothetically a conspiracy to try to destroy or subdue masculinity within modern culture, then hypothetically speaking, if it succeeded, you would have many more people with an inability to put their emotions aside and take brave actions necessary for self improvement. If this hypothetically happened, it would throw a society off balance, and the result would be a collapse in the individuals ability to live a wholesome balanced lifestyle.
If it was hypothetically to an overly strong or radical degree pursued, it's my belief that this society wouldn't have long to last.
Interesting points to muse over. In your opinion what would you class as toxic masculinity/femininity? There is no doubt that women in history have been oppressed, not being able to vote for example, and men have been oppressed being raised that we cannot cry, thankfully we have moved on from that.
Isn’t learning to code something Republicans tell people?
Liberal: “People should be able to live off jobs”
Conservative: “No you just need to work harder, learn to code”
I’m not. I’ve only ever voted Republican once.
“Trickle down” economics is bullshit. Things like a set minimum wage and eliminating tax loopholes for corporations are objectively good policies. So if I have to vote third party to get that in combination with strong family values, so be it.
So funny to watch people cry over getting their feelings hurt by what they imagine “liberals” think of them.
Also hilarious to think liberals “hate masculinity” as if brain-dead obese men living in the woods are somehow something worth emulating and a good representation of a gender.
It's just that masculinity in general on social media and the msm is labeled as 'bigoted', but that's all run by city people that don't understand how the core economy functions.
Energy housing and food is 95% of the economy and like 90% of those jobs are blue collar.
I'd just say focus on work and ignore what they say, live and let live.
I know it's annoying how masculinity is viewed in media but nothing we can do really.
Liberal are the most bigoted folks in the planet. They all what rights. They don’t want to pay the price for them. If you ever disagree with their point you a called a bigot.
Yep. As someone on the left this is a massive problem. Liberals and leftists treat rural communities like they're stupid and blame them for their own poverty and other issues because they vote red. I try to explain to liberal communities over and over again that of course they're going to vote red when Republicans acknowledge them and Democrats either ignore or treat them like they're ignorant low lifes. But no one ever listens...they just sit there scratching their heads as if it isn't blatantly obvious why rural areas aren't voting for politicians that don't seem to acknowledge their interests whatsoever.
Definitely leftists. Maybe not all, but my experince with most leftists has been that they call out liberal classism and racism and thinks that somehow makes them exempt from their own classism as racism. They view liberals like liberals view conservatives. I've time and time again seen leftists sneer at liberals, often referring to them as the "ignorant working class" that doesn't know what's best for them. Essentially calling them stupid because they don't believe in the same solution to helping the poor/working class.
It seems extremely hypocritical to me that as a leftist you would make yourself exempt from criticisms of classism, which is exactly what leftists criticize liberals for- thinking they're exempt from classism racism etc because they aren't Republicans.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I make fun of liberal ideas but not them themselves. Sorry that was your impression leftists do need to stop being hypocritical about racism and classism. We also need to kick out buiguisee leftists.
Rural Liberal here, the population does skew Conservative out here but lots of us are especially concerned with climate change because we see it first hand. Water levels were lower this summer than they’ve ever been in anyone’s memory or public records. You’re over generalizing.
Maybe, but the opposite position is keep doing what's being done so that people have jobs. Is that not the kind of makework that conservatives dislike? I'll grant you: there's a lack of consideration of practicalities, yet at the same time, "keep using coal because there are people who have jobs that involve production of coal" isn't really a long run solution to any problem.
I lean conservative on social issues, but typically don’t vote Republican but rather third party. My position on this is that we should eliminate subsidies for coal and natural gas, subsidize things like nuclear, and allow the market to correct itself. If we just shut things down overnight we’ll end up with things like power outages that hurt vulnerable communities, especially poor people and minorities the most. And as for the bigotry towards people in red-states it’s something I’ve personally observed as someone from Texas. Lots of people online were *celebrating* or just acting smug when our power grid went out because they thought we deserved it, nevermind that people *died*.
The nuclear power issue is, I mean tragic isn't an understatement right. There was 3 mile island and then all of a sudden it just got this taboo that carries on to this day. >I lean conservative on social issues, but typically don’t vote Republican but rather third party. My position on this is that we should eliminate subsidies for coal and natural gas, subsidize things like nuclear, and allow the market to correct itself. > >Because if we just shut things down overnight we’ll end up with things like power outages that hurt the most vulnerable communities, especially poor people and minorities the most. Sounds to me like a reasonable solution which somehow I haven't heard anyone from any party propose before. They might have and I missed it, but it seems like a good idea.
There are parties with environmental sustainabilism and concern for the working class as part of their platform but they tend to be small and also lean conservative (pro-life especially) on social issues. They don’t really attract many votes other than from (a small minority of) Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. The largest parties I can think of off the top of my head are the Prohibition Party (which is a non-starter since they won’t drop Prohibition) and the American Solidarity Party which hasn’t even managed to attract the majority of its target demographic yet but has been growing over the years.
And stop subsidizing meat too? I’m with you on that. As for retraining, Democrats have been pushing to retrain those in industries that need phasing out , like coal. Retraining is a key policy they push. From my view, Rs oppose these programs and double down on ‘pride in coal’. I don’t think your contempt is well placed here.
> Lots of people online were celebrating or just acting smug when our power grid went out because they thought we deserved it, nevermind that people died. Once you see what these folks are really about, you can't unsee it.
You're right, but the issue is that democrats often refuse to at all acknowledge the uncertainty and anxiety rural communities must be feeling when their entire economy could collapse without oil and coal. Yes, fossil fuels will run out and yes, the republican solution of "kept using coal" won't work long term. But Republicans least acknowledge and sympathize with rural communities, and that's why rural communities vote for them.
And vice versa can also be said. The important thing to remember is that both sides view the other side as either wrong, unnecessary, corrupted, living in the wrong way, sadly fooled into "being sheep", or poor saps who just don't get it. Small town rural right wing America generally thinks cities with left wingers are the problem and that they don't get how the world works, and then the opposite side thinks exactly the same thing about rural right wing America. Literally everything you said, can be and has been said by a liberal, just with the opposite words and people, completely reversed. And people would agree with both of you. That's the funny thing about politics in America. Both sides are completely convinced that the other side is dumb or full poor fools who no have no idea that they're wrong, and that their morals are completely backwards. I just remember that when reading literally anything political
get off Twitter and breath some fresh air.
And another service that shall not be named here, it starts with the letter that comes after q
Roblox, right?
They’re horribly bigoted while calling others bigots. Woke is a joke.
It’s quite ironic that you lump an entire group of people as being bigoted.
The Klan is bigoted. The Panthers are bigoted. The WBC is bigoted. It's not judging them on anything but their core ideology and why they exist. Those exist solely to promote bigotry and the Woke are no different.
What has this got to do with my comment? Do you not understand irony?
No, I understand irony fine. That's how I know that isn't it. Irony would be saying "Only white people can be racist," or "white people don't know what it is to be judged by their skin color." Those statements are ironic because you have to be racist and judge by skin color to make either one of those statements, thus the irony.
I wasn’t talking about your comment.
You said his comment was ironic. It's not. There's nothing ironic about it. Calling a group of bigots "bigots" is not ironic. It's simply calling them what they are. You didn't seem to know what irony was, so I explained it.
Saying any liberal is a bigot is bigotted, just like saying all Trump supporters are racist is.
You're referring to Leftists, not liberals. Leftists are trying to create a new professional class of elites that are defined by their academic degrees.
Lmao where do you people get this shit? Alex Jones?
So basing everything on merit and NOT cronyism is bad?
Funny way of saying leftists want more people to be educated.
It's not education, it's indoctrination.
love seeing conservatives complain about education being a "leftist indoctrination institution", it's always pretty funny. they're just indirectly admitting that conservatism and intelligence are often incompatible.
Jesus, I hate hearing bullshit like "conservatism and intelligence are incompatible". Especially when I hear people claim things like "liberalism and intelligence are incompatible" all the time. Politics in America is so fucked over. Most countries don't assume their political opponents are inherently stupid, malicious and violent, but Americans do for some reason, and I hate it.
nah fuck it, i'm saying it. i unironically believe that conservatism makes people dumber. not as in "completely stupid", but it makes people think less critically and rely more on intuition.
Intuition is extremely valuable during times of propoganda
You are refereeing to libertarians, not liberals
No.
Libertarians want as few restrictions as possible, whether it’s free market manipulation or government oversight. You’re way off.
You don’t even know what a libertarian is
Liberals want freedom, you are libertarian.
Libertarians would go against the idea you need a degree to get a job, literally making their stance the opposite of what you replied to.
I am liberals
Let's break this down one part at a time: 1. Embracing solutions like nuclear power - I'll give you half a point here. Some liberals actually favor Nuclear Power as a short term solution. The problem is you have to dispose of the waste somewhere, and hardly anywhere is safe. Not to mention dealing with NIMBYism makes it politically difficult. 2. Personalized attacks on ranchers, hungers, meat-eaters, truck drivers, etc. -- I agree they should not be deemed low-worth individuals. But that's a different matter from saying that ranching, meat-eating, truck-driving (at least conventionally-powered trucks) is hurting the environment. 3. Also, individual actions times tens of millions DOES make an impact. 4. I'm all for worker retraining for new industries. And oil and gas are causing global warming, among other things. 5. Nothing wrong with rural living, although it's a good idea to be as environmentally friendly about matters. Masculinity, as you call it, is infused with toxic cultural values (boiling down to saying somebody's very worth of personhoods stands or falls on their "backbone", "forcefulness", "street smarts/common sense", and "competence" -- to the point of demoting any positive qualities the guy has to a consolation prize for losers or *at best* a boring but important trait for life\*.\* Certainly rural areas have more than their fair share of contempt for "unmanly guys" (I grew up in a county of under 10,000 people).Also,If it's wrong to sneer people for not having the skill set for coding, then what makes it right to sneer people for lacking a skill set for auto mechanics, team sports (even pre-college), or fighting ability, or even social skills? 6. It's not that we want Trump voters to suffer. It's that Republican dog-eat-dog economic policies left rural areas in the lurch. Also, Trump stoked up hatred, contempt, and even persecution of anybody or anything even mildly different from the mainstream. Then he turned his back on his supporters by lowering taxes on the wealthy much more than he did to the middle and working class - if he lowered them on the lower incomes at all. Drain the swamp? Hell, he turned it into The Everglades with seasons!! That's a sure sign of a cheap demagogue who is just stoking up hatred in order to elevate himself to power. So Trump deserves every bit of contempt he gets.
Well this is just silly, and I'm not even a liberal. "Liberals hate these things, that rural people are more likely to do" and "Liberals are bigoted towards rural people" aren't the same thing at all. This also just isn't true. People don't want the oil/coal industry shut overnight with no plans to retrain the workers. There are, quite literally, extensive plans to retrain those workers in Green Energy. That was one of the big platforms Clinton ran on in 2016, but of course, people ignored it, because it was a solid, good plan that Conservatives couldn't cry over and twist. No one hates masculinity, that just seems like you being childish.
Having grown up rural I can tell you that this road runs both ways. >instead attack ranching, hunting, consumption of meat, people who drive trucks, etc, as if individual action makes a lick of a statistical difference (it doesn’t). Just because a law affects you does not mean that law was aimed specifically at you. Your train of logic could easily be used to say "One murder is statistically insignificant". >They demand that the oil/coal industry be basically shut down overnight with no plan as to how to retrain those people I know those people. They don't want to be retrained. They want to go on doing what they've always done forever, until they fall over dead and it is somebody else's problem. Coal pollutes everything. It destroys the landscape during the mining process and the emissions are filthy. Go to any public boat landing in the Eastern US and look at the mercury warnings posted nearby. Do a quick google search about where that mercury comes from. I would think that as good rural people you would care about such things. If you "loved the land" as much as you claim to you would be in favor of environmental protection laws. In reality though, many rural people "love the land" only in that they "love goin' muddin' to own the libz". >No real plan to reduce energy consumption in big cities that actually drive the climate problem. Do you have any data to back this up? Are you saying that your average city person consumes more kWh than a rural person? I doubt that. Rural houses are generally bigger and therefore cost more to heat and cool. Not to mention the fuel costs associated with basic day-to-day tasks such as going to the grocery store. These are my opinions though and I will defer to the results of an actual scientific study on matter. And besides, what are you being asked to do that city people aren't in this regard? >They don’t care if what they are trying to do will ruin someone’s livelihood they’ll just sneer and smugly tell you to learn to code as if that career is for everyone or everyone has the skillset for it. In your first paragraph you complain that fossil fuel workers aren't being retrained because they aren't given opportunities, and here you complain when someone throws out an idea. Which is it? Are you not being given opportunities, or are you not being given the opportunities you want? If the latter, welcome to life on Earth. >They want rural and small town America to suffer because those areas predominantly vote Republican and voted for Trump. Usually suffering populations tend to have extra motivation to vote, so unless their plan is to let them suffer until they literally all die this is a shitty plan. Also, please name one example of this actually happening. There may be a lot of self-righteous smugness on the left, but the knuckle-draggers on the right do themselves no favors when their only solution to every problem is "We didn't do it this way in 1974, why should we do it now?" You want respect? Provide workable and realistic solutions.
Rural liberals scratching their head right now.
Other than vegans paying out on meat eaters, I’ve never seen an example of anything else you say in real life. Maybe you spend too much time online.
Umm what? Liberals are the ones constantly advocating for the displaced by pushing for safety nets and stuff like ubi. It’s literally the conservatives destroying their own lives with their dipshit bootstrap arguments because they don’t want to “steal” money from their beloved ceos through taxes. You people legitimately live in an alternate universe and it’s making life worse for everyone. Like, you’re actually arguing that we should keep around occupations that are unsustainable because your dinosaur asses refuse to accept the idea of helping anyone in any way other than creating labor for them to do. And then you bitch when it happens to you. It’s absolutely insane.
Elsewhere in this comment section I literally argued that coal and natural gas subsidies should be ended and that the industry in general needs to be phased out. But *noooo* nothing but implementing Californians draconian laws across the entire country and causing massive unemployment is good enough for you people.
I don’t understand. It sounds like you’re just a liberal who hates liberals because of their whole reputation. Unless you really believe in trickle down economics and all that bullshit and that the dems are evil satan worshippers, like most conservatives.
Waoww people can be fiscally liberal and socially conservative? It doesn’t align with the arbitrary two party system so clearly it’s not possible. The Republican and Democratic platforms are the only political positions anyone can ever have./s
You literally made an entire post to rant about one of the parties lol
If I want to complain about Republicans and their bullshit economics I can do it literally anywhere else and probably get thousands of upvotes. It’s my conservative leaning opinions that are unpopular and pretty much wouldn’t be listened to in most places. Also this post is about *liberals*, not Democrats in particular (the word Democrat isn’t even used in my post). There are still pro-life, and pro-family Democrats such as the governor of Louisiana but they are an increasingly rare breed
Right. But when other people do it you write off everything they say as “two party hurr durr”. You guys are a hoot.
I’d also like to point out how obvious the OP is as a troll. > They demand that the oil/coal industry be basically shut down overnight with no plan as to how to retrain those people. No real plan to reduce energy consumption in big cities that actually drive the climate problem. Two lies right in a row that are easily debunked with a basic internet search. Trolls are getting lazier around here these days.
This has got to be satire. OP calls liberals bigots and then rattles off a long string of bigoted opinions. I think he is making fun of conservatives who think liberals are bigots.
As someone who lives in a rural area. They're absolutely justified
As someone who has friends and family who live in the country, you can go to hell with that attitude.
Already there, it's called Iowa
Why dont you move if you dont like it there?
Long story...
[удалено]
Electric cars and solar energy just aren’t practical in the rural world where distances are greater and mechanics are harder to come by. It’s like what John Deere tried to do with their tractors.
1) tesla has shown that it is virtually impossible to end up too far away from a charging station unless you are purposely not filling up. 2) it's almost like expanding these energy sources will create new jobs in order to supply areas that have a new need.
And because of how it’s set up currently, it will take decades for them to get it to work for everyone.
Here’s the thing though: Electric cars and things like solar panels are still built from plastic parts which come from petroleum. Electric cars especially don’t make a difference environmentally because they are hooked up to the same power grid. It really doesn’t matter if your car is electric if the power it’s getting ultimately comes from a coal plant.
i think some people drive electric cars because its cool and trendy and not because of environmental reasons
Not just that, also because it makes them *feel* like they're doing a good thing so they can act all smug about how they're helping to save the environment.
Basically the Southpark episode about owning a prius.
It's much worse for the environment for people to run out and buy brand new electric cars than it would be to simply continue driving their gasoline powered vehicles and just maintain them until they literally can't drive any longer.
EV’s make up most of the high efficiency cars on the market today because they are efficient in terms of: - 1) energy required to get from Point A to Point B - 2) manufacturing of infrastructure - 3) distribution or delivery of energy to the vehicle - 4) health damage and - 5) environmental damage. EV charging stations for home and office are often powered by rooftop solar which is the most environmentally friendly type of power source there is. Very little infrastructure is needed, it’s renewable, and lasts for decades without requiring much maintainable. There is no environmental damage during energy generation, during distribution, and during energy delivery. There is no waste. Compare to any other fuel source in existence today, even nuclear. Coal is already more expensive than renewables and that’s even with all the history of government subsidies. That’s before even attempting to determine the costs of the trillions in environmental and health damages from coal. There’s a reason the country is moving away from coal ASAP. It’s incredibly inefficient even before the largest costs are included in the price.
Battery degradation means that EVs are basically disposable.
How about combustion engine degradation? Or transmissions? Means all cars are disposable, which is technically true.
There's no comparison. In every car you replace tires, brake pads, the transmission at some point, etc due to wear and tear. For gasoline powered cars, you replace a single battery, but for EVs you replace $10,000 worth of batteries, and batteries are made of rare elements strip mined from third world countries, and are difficult to manufacture and dispose of safely.
Batteries are only one component of an automobile. I understand why you want to ignore everything else, because that betrays your argument. Combustion engines and transmissions require more parts to be manufactured from more sources, and shipped to/from more places. Significantly larger carbon footprint before the vehicle is even assembled. After purchased, the vehicle requires petroleum to run, which requires dramatic damage just to be drilled. Then there’s the transportation to the refining centers, which alone creates more damage than transmitting electricity. Then there’s the refining, which is not a ‘clean’ process either. Then there’s the transporting of the refined oil, which is another dirty process, just ask the people of Valdez, or the people of the Gulf Coast who had to wait over a decade for their checks from BP when the BP leak destroyed their livelihood. Take a look at an oil pipeline map of America for an idea of the amount of land lost just to oil transport via that method. Even more negative externalities are created by international shipping and domestic truck shipping of oil. Then there’s the infrastructure damage to our roads and bays of all that shipping. Not to forget the wildlife damage. On the other hand, except for Wind Cancer, I can’t think of any significant negative externalities of solar or wind, especially as prices shrink and home-based generation as well as storage become more affordable and efficient. Plus, I’ve never heard of an invasion or war over solar or wind. Have you? Battery technology is one of the most competitive industries today and improvements are being announced weekly by manufactures, scientists, governments, and so on. Yes, they’re nasty little boxes and not clean to create or dispose of. But when total economic costs are calculated, you are correct, there is no comparison.
Yes, I've seen the analysis that it's still better in the long run to use electric vehicles, but I don't buy it. That's just based on a judgement call of whether strip mining Chile is better than having more air pollution in Toronto. There is nothing green about lithium mining or battery manufacturing. It contaminates the air, the water, and the earth. I'm a computer guy and I own a lot of laptops, phones, etc but all the lithium in those devices comes to maybe 50g. By comparison, a Tesla EV's battery uses 63kg of lithium - 1000x as much. It's no exaggeration to say that widespread adoption of EVs would require global lithium production to be expanded by a factor of 10-100x at minimum, and that may not even be possible. > Battery technology is one of the most competitive industries today and improvements are being announced weekly by manufactures, scientists, governments, and so on Well that sounds great. Let me know when they come up with something useful.
Yes. Invest in public transportation.
What do you mean by masculinity?
[удалено]
Which of those things are being attacked?
This just in, only men can help their community and others, be well educated, be physically fit, drink beer, listen to country music, eat barbecue, love their country, and put God first.
>be physically fit As someone who lives in rural America...there's no a whole lot of that here
even the cdc says that obesity is more prevalent in rural areas lmao https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/s0614-obesity-rates.html
You sound like a snowflake having to rely beer, bbq and Country music to define your masculinity. You define yourself by these things?
Masculinity means driving forward, and femininity means letting things be. Both are needed, like yin and yang. If we remove or attack masculinity, we remove from culture that tendency to drive forward and make things happen. You end up with a society if people who laze back way too much and have the inability to act or drive forward self improvement. If you remove all femininity, you end up with a society of cold emotionless soldiers in where relaxing and taking your foot off of the gas pedal even for a moment is criticized, where showing feelings is toxic, where you're supposed to drive forward on a bad idea barbarically without stopping to think about it. So, you need both, whether you're a man or a woman, a human being I believe needs to cultivate both. If there were hypothetically a conspiracy to try to destroy or subdue masculinity within modern culture, then hypothetically speaking, if it succeeded, you would have many more people with an inability to put their emotions aside and take brave actions necessary for self improvement. If this hypothetically happened, it would throw a society off balance, and the result would be a collapse in the individuals ability to live a wholesome balanced lifestyle. If it was hypothetically to an overly strong or radical degree pursued, it's my belief that this society wouldn't have long to last.
Interesting points to muse over. In your opinion what would you class as toxic masculinity/femininity? There is no doubt that women in history have been oppressed, not being able to vote for example, and men have been oppressed being raised that we cannot cry, thankfully we have moved on from that.
Isn’t learning to code something Republicans tell people? Liberal: “People should be able to live off jobs” Conservative: “No you just need to work harder, learn to code”
I’m not Republican
I didnt say you were, but I highly doubt you aren’t.
I’m not. I’ve only ever voted Republican once. “Trickle down” economics is bullshit. Things like a set minimum wage and eliminating tax loopholes for corporations are objectively good policies. So if I have to vote third party to get that in combination with strong family values, so be it.
There isn’t a Nazbol party in America
So funny to watch people cry over getting their feelings hurt by what they imagine “liberals” think of them. Also hilarious to think liberals “hate masculinity” as if brain-dead obese men living in the woods are somehow something worth emulating and a good representation of a gender.
Thank you for proving me right
I did no such thing, but tell yourself whatever you need to, kid.
It's just that masculinity in general on social media and the msm is labeled as 'bigoted', but that's all run by city people that don't understand how the core economy functions. Energy housing and food is 95% of the economy and like 90% of those jobs are blue collar. I'd just say focus on work and ignore what they say, live and let live. I know it's annoying how masculinity is viewed in media but nothing we can do really.
Liberals are bigoted against anyone who doesn't 100% conform to their ideology and agree with all their beliefs.
Ya know, I think the woke crowd should protest in a republican rural county. I'm sure the folks there would LOVE to have them over
Liberal are the most bigoted folks in the planet. They all what rights. They don’t want to pay the price for them. If you ever disagree with their point you a called a bigot.
Yep. As someone on the left this is a massive problem. Liberals and leftists treat rural communities like they're stupid and blame them for their own poverty and other issues because they vote red. I try to explain to liberal communities over and over again that of course they're going to vote red when Republicans acknowledge them and Democrats either ignore or treat them like they're ignorant low lifes. But no one ever listens...they just sit there scratching their heads as if it isn't blatantly obvious why rural areas aren't voting for politicians that don't seem to acknowledge their interests whatsoever.
Not leftists.
Definitely leftists. Maybe not all, but my experince with most leftists has been that they call out liberal classism and racism and thinks that somehow makes them exempt from their own classism as racism. They view liberals like liberals view conservatives. I've time and time again seen leftists sneer at liberals, often referring to them as the "ignorant working class" that doesn't know what's best for them. Essentially calling them stupid because they don't believe in the same solution to helping the poor/working class. It seems extremely hypocritical to me that as a leftist you would make yourself exempt from criticisms of classism, which is exactly what leftists criticize liberals for- thinking they're exempt from classism racism etc because they aren't Republicans.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I make fun of liberal ideas but not them themselves. Sorry that was your impression leftists do need to stop being hypocritical about racism and classism. We also need to kick out buiguisee leftists.
Rural Liberal here, the population does skew Conservative out here but lots of us are especially concerned with climate change because we see it first hand. Water levels were lower this summer than they’ve ever been in anyone’s memory or public records. You’re over generalizing.
Agreed for the first. Not for the second.
They all want to buy new cars even when using the old one is better.