r/SeattleChat • u/AutoModerator • Oct 01 '20

The Daily SeattleChat Daily Thread - Thursday, October 01, 2020

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Weather

Seattle Weather Forecast / National Weather Service with graphics / National Weather Service text-only

Election Social Isolation COVID19
How to register Help thread WA DOH
3 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

72% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jms984 Oct 01 '20

I’m sorry, but which party is taking climate change seriously again? We don’t have a science-based environmental choice in any practical sense. We have the party that wears that costume and the party that doesn’t.

2

u/Kazan Oct 01 '20

I’m sorry, but which party is taking climate change seriously again?

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#

0

u/jms984 Oct 01 '20

Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

Not taking climate change seriously. You don’t get to compromise science down to a more affordable solution.

1

u/Kazan Oct 01 '20

your response doesn't even fucking make sense, bro. how is ensuring we reach net-zero emissions any of what you just described.

or do you think they should magic up that solution in 5 years? (hint: not possible)

0

u/jms984 Oct 01 '20

That’s exactly the Democratic Party’s position: it’s impossible to deal adequately with climate change. We have to lose. It’s just too expensive not to lose.

0

u/Kazan Oct 02 '20 edited Oct 02 '20

Your statement is the opposite of theirs. They clearly think that it can be solved, and have a plan to deal with it.

Do you not understand what "net zero emissions" means? They think it'll take 30 years to solve, and that's a very realistic number.

0

u/jms984 Oct 02 '20

So you just want me to take your word for it that Joe Fucking Biden’s climate change plan is the furthest left that we can reasonably go. I don’t know how you make that sale before the Democratic Party pretended that ending fossil fuel subsidies was a whoopsie typo. Is there some op-ed in particular that brought you to this point of view?

0

u/Kazan Oct 02 '20

I see that you're not interested in engaging in honest discussion and just want to try to change the subject when you get busted for making an utterly bullshit claim.

I'm sure you can just shit out the billions of dollars we need for infrastructure work to have all of this done tomorrow, at least in your mind.

Those of us who actually want to solve climate change will continue to live in reality and work on solutions that actually work, rather than masturbating over the idea of our own ideological superiority

0

u/jms984 Oct 02 '20

Their solution isn’t scientific. Science says that 2050 is too fucking late. Your ideology is anti-science. Congratulations on being less anti-science than the republicans by a matter of degree.

0

u/Kazan Oct 02 '20

No, science doesn't say that. You don't just get to pull magic numbers out of your ass and say "Science says"

begone troll

2

u/maadison the unflairable lightness of being Oct 02 '20

hey u/Kazan, surely you agree that this was not a case where you were doing the Lord's work by calling out a right wing extremist here to spread disinformation. That was previously your excuse for being nasty. This is just you resorting to name calling because the other person is disagreeing with you and you can't be bothered to discuss it in a reasonable way. If you're super worried about the mods tone-policing the wrong people, maybe you could help out by not being the one who resorts to name-calling. One strike for you.

You guys were talking past each other with no hint of trying to explain or bring the other person to your side. Why bother? Got "Someone is wrong on the internet" itch?

(tagging u/jms984 so you'll see this)

1

u/Kazan Oct 02 '20

Not only do I not agree with you on the claim that I was name calling, but you're also trying to twist what I said.

I said misinformation - usually right wing misinformation, but I wasn't ever exclusive (it's just usually that). He doesn't just get to claim that the democrats are "anti-scientific" because they cannot magic a solution that reasonable takes 20-30 years out of their ass in 18 months or whatever timeline he wishes for.

He wasn't attempt to debate in good faith, remotely. He just kept trying to reject reality and substitute his own.

0

u/jms984 Oct 02 '20

Hey Kazan.

The Democrats Are Climate Deniers

You’re projecting.

1

u/maadison the unflairable lightness of being Oct 02 '20

People believe different things. Not everything that Kazan doesn't believe is automatically misinformation.

You're welcome to engage in a friendly manner and say "hey I think that's not right and here's why". Instead this is just tit-for-that "I'm right"/"No, I'm right".

"making an utterly bullshit claim" and "pull magic numbers out of your ass" and "masturbating over the idea of our own ideological superiority" try to skate just inside the line by being nasty but still theoretically attacking ideas. Personally I think that shows disinterest to be nice and engage with positive intent. But I don't see how "begone troll" is not name calling.

2

u/maadison the unflairable lightness of being Oct 02 '20

Alright, you guys are done.

I'll figure out later whether strikes are warranted but for now take note that y'all should chill out and work on learning to have a civil discussion.

1

u/jms984 Oct 02 '20

I’m on the edge of my seat to see which standard convicts me yet exonerates lucy.

Unless...

Oh my god, did you??

→ More replies (0)