hirihit640
@hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on At least it's not a NFT? 14 hours ago:
Something inexpensive and sentimental would be way more romantic anyway.
how about a Topps Chrome Update Basketball - STEPH CURRY ‘Night, Night!’ Minion SSP
- Comment on How to move a sofa 5 days ago:
I can see a narration style like this working for a comedy film. Or maybe just a 5 minute skit. Maybe throw in some Wes Anderson visual gags
- Comment on Men are generous 6 days ago:
fwiw I agree with you. 1-2 racist posts out of 1800 total posts, is not enough to warrant an assumption of bad faith on the Ceuta post
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
If all you care about is meeting commitments, the US doesn’t have any more commitments so I guess they are doing fine?? The commitments for China were low because that was all they could get China to agree to. These commitments don’t mean anything
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
You mentioned the US and Canada, not the EU? And nothing about emissions per GDP? Maybe stop lying?
You clearly just think China is doing “good enough”. Fine. And I think the US and EU are doing “good enough” too and the oil companies in OP are not a problem
- Comment on This Is Why I Sit Down To Pee Pee 1 week ago:
Old guy from the comic presses his ear to the door “Hey! I don’t hear shittin! This guys just pissin in there!”
- Comment on This Is Why I Sit Down To Pee Pee 1 week ago:
Same way people handle bathhouses in asian countries. You learn to stop caring so much about your naked body
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
So you bring up unrelated whataboutisms and then complain that people won’t follow them. I’m not throwing arbitrary roadblocks, you’re throwing arbitrary roads. And you want to claim you are acting in good faith? Laughable
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
China is behind the EU in per capita emissions. And anyways as mentioned before, per capita emissions is not the metric I would use. The wiki on carbon emissions also shows per GDP emissions, and on that China is behind.
But there’s another simple metric that China is behind on. Reducing emissions. Not just slowing growth. Reducing them. The US and EU can do it, so should China
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
out of one side of your mouth …but out of the other side of your mouth
Both can be true. I’m saying that even though China is less advanced than the US (as evidenced by the lower GDP per capita and lower emissions per capita), China still has enough GDP per capita to be amongst the top nations of the world.
At the very least, they should be reducing their emissions like the other top nations. I’m not asking more from China than I am from western nations. I’m asking for them to do the same.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
I addressed that here
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant. They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place. For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030. The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down. Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake. But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
Everyone’s continue to grow
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
I mentioned this in another thread which tried to use “emissions per capita”, but that isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity. We had very low emissions pre-1800s, for example. And North Korea has 4x less emissions per capita than China, are we supposed to follow North Korea’s lead?
Also I hate how everybody constantly frames China as a poor helpless victim of capitalism. This was also mentioned in another thread here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
China has all the hallmarks of capitalism - widening wealth gap, massive housing speculation, horrible working conditions, etc. If China gets to use dirty energy as a “short term strategy” with some vague promise to do better in the future, then why not the West? We could call all the evils of the world just “short term strategy”.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
I’m sure you’re joking but I do recommend reading Tragedy of the Commons, it’s just a few pages long. Amongst other things, it talks about how regulations need to be applied everywhere for them to be effective.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
The problem is that you won’t be able to pull out a number that makes America/the west/Capitalism look good, because such a thing doesn’t exist…so instead you just try to brush it off as “oh well our country is better because of this number”.
You’re contradicting yourself here. You’re saying I can’t pull out a number so I…pull out a number?
I’m not even clear what you’re arguing here. My point is that the US and EU emissions have been declining for the past 20 years while China’s continues to climb.
Is that scientific enough for you?
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
This is not a result of capitalism. It’s simply the result of competition. Now if you want to erase country borders, that’s a different discussion. But as long as one country doesn’t regulate fossil fuel emissions, it doesn’t matter what economic system they use, capitalism, communism, or whatever, they’re going to be able to produce goods for cheaper. Because they’re ignoring the real costs.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
Information has tons of value. I’m not a fan of copyright but I also don’t agree that physical products are inherently more valuable.
Also regarding insurance raises and other price raises. Prices usually rise when demand rises. So it’s a measure of what people want. Much better than just measuring pure survival. Now if all prices rose, that would be inflation, and GDP accounts for that. But if the price of one product rises while the prices of others fall, that’s just shifting consumer demand. Of course GDP isn’t perfect since there can be monopolies, oligopolies, and state-controlled companies, but imo it’s better than using population as a measure.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
Fossil fuel emissions are also a human construct. We did fine before fossil fuels, and even coal. Population is a horrible measure because all it captures is if you are keeping people alive. Even North Korea can keep people alive. But people want more than just survival.
But fine, you want to talk about population? You’re ignoring the second example I brought up. The EU has 1/3 the population of China and 1/4 the emissions. In other words, China is still the problem.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
If you want to measure efficiency, population is not the way to do it, economic output is.
The US has 3/4 the GDP of China with less than half the emissions. The EU also has 3/4 the GDP of China, but less than 1/4 the emissions. Both are far more efficient
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
Why are we blaming these companies when there’s a much bigger contributor
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
US and Europe carbon emissions have gone down in the past 20 years, while China’s has grown rapidly. China accounts for %35 of the world’s emissions. Of course lots of manufacturing for goods happens in China, but this just tells me that capitalism is not to blame here, China is. China needs to raise their carbon taxes. Or maybe manufacturing needs to come back to the US and Europe, where it can be properly regulated.
- Comment on take their money and arrest those responsible 1 week ago:
if it’s impossible to affect change as a single person, then why do anything at all? Why bother to vote? I hear this logic all the time and it doesn’t make sense to me.
“Don’t bother making personal changes, voting will save us!” people vote for Trump “Wait not like that”
That’s not to say that public policy is pointless. “Tragedy of the commons” tells us that regulation is necessary. But I think the framing is wrong. The culprit here is not oil companies. It’s oil. If you tell people “oil companies are evil”, and tax the oil companies more, these people are just going to get mad when the taxes trickle down to them in the form of higher gas prices.
The correct framing is “Oil and gas cost more to us, than the cost of simply digging it out of the ground. The added taxes are to reflect the true cost”. Then people will understand why gas prices need to go up.
Then add on some Infographics and memes that show how much more efficient public transit is. How solar panels pay off over the long term. Etc. Because personal responsibility does in fact make a difference.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
One can say it’s proof that slippery slope fallacy indeed a fallacy, since they did not start pushing more political opinions into the code, and instead did the opposite and pulled it out
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
looks like the filter was removed at some point: …catsarch.com/…/lemmy_release_0140_the_controvers…
Long story short, it was a list of banned words hardcoded into the platform code.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
What do people here think about the censored word list baked into the Lemmy platform code. I haven’t followed the situation for a while but I remember there being one.
- Comment on Anon tries dating apps 2 weeks ago:
I know it’s meant to be positive but gives me horror to me, like Hansel and Gretel
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 3 weeks ago:
You’re talking about the legal system. Our laws are pragmatic, and account for things like lying.
OPs post is a philosophical question. The premise is whether it’s moral for you to fuck roadkill based on whether you killed it or now. Concerns like lying to a courtroom or to the people around you, are out of scope.
So philosophically:
them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident
This would be immoral, since they still killed the animal to fuck it.
