areyouevenreal
@areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
So then why did you tell people not to reply to you?
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
I keep telling you I am not an American, and things don’t always or often work that same way outside of America. Though there are parts of Europe struggling with similar issues now. None of what you are saying makes that much sense in the UK. There are young people who want radical right wing policies, but they aren’t voting for the mainstream conservative party. They are voting for Reform UK, causing the right wing vote to be split. This split is a large part of why they lost the last election by a country mile. Meanwhile Labour moving right, combined with repeated scandals by the conservatives has lead to even life long conservative voters changing sides. Them moving right has also lead to them being critical of transgender people. Our Labor prime minister has gone so far to say that even transgender women who have a legal certificate should not use Women’s spaces. It’s crazy honestly. This is the same guy that’s pro-nationalization and pro-regulation.
You keep saying we even though we aren’t even in the same situation. It seems all you care about is the USA. Honestly I personally think the USA needs to hurry up and collapse already since that’s what seems to be happening anyway, and the slow collapse will just cause more issues.
If you want people to cooperate better and get along together the best thing you can tell them to do is to not get involved in politics at all. Politics is a lot of what is causing this division and “atomization” as you call it. Neurodivergent people are easily radicalized by extremists of both sides both alt-left and alt-right. You are better off telling them not to get involved at all if you want people to follow community and stop forming cliques. Of course you aren’t going to do that, because you actually have an agenda yourself. I wouldn’t tell people to do that either for the same reason. Although actually you could do some targeted voter suppression and disenfranchisement with right-wing people if you wanted to steer things in a left wing direction. If all you care about is winning the vote then you need to start employing and using the same tactics as the alt-right use against everyone else. Pushing radical ideas and policies would be a good step in the right direction, since that’s exactly what the alt-right do.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
So much for talking to people you don’t agree with. It seems you can’t or won’t hold up to your own ideals of engaging with others in good faith.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
Except talking to people I don’t agree with is exactly what I do. I am doing it to you now! Think about that! I regularly get in arguments online with the opposite side on reddit. I talk to people here I don’t agree with too. I’ve spent plenty of time talking with people offline too, though often with less aggression. I doubt I am the only person doing this. In fact I have seen evidence of others doing this. So I am not sure where you get your ideas from to be perfectly honest.
The above is actually the exact opposite of what leftists are normally told to do, yet so many do it anyway. I am really wondering what is going on in your head mate. Me thinks you are delusional. Having people argue against each other often justs radicalises them further, this is a known fact. It doesn’t help “deatomize” them or whatever you are talking about.
As for working with people you hate: you shouldn’t be forced to protest with people who hate who you are because of prejudice. That’s not something you should ever ask of anyone. It’s perfectly reasonable to use violence against such people in fact. It might even be effective. Things are often solved through killing after all, that’s what war is. That’s how the Nazis were beat last time.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
I already talk politics on normie social media, and in bars, and even to colleagues sometimes. I do all these things, for all the good it might do. You don’t fully understand who you are talking to, the demographic you are trying to address, anymore than you understand politics outside of America. Queer and Neurodivergent people are already some of the most radicalised people who fight the most. They make up a good chunk of the alt-right, and much of the alt-left too. You have just spent too much time talking to the chronically online individuals or whatever the term is.
As I said here we had a landslide loss against the right wing party. Mainly because the British people won’t tolerate the kinds of scandals that the politicians got up to, certainly we wouldn’t tolerate Trump here. The outcome though was the left wing party doing the bad stuff instead. It’s not about compromise when people’s rights are on the line. I am not saying don’t vote where you are, and I certainly voted where I am. It’s just at this point that strategy isn’t working as well as it should. While screaming at people is great, I don’t even know what to tell them to do. Whoever I would tell them to vote for either won’t get in, will do harmful things, or are far too radical for normal people to go for, or some combo of the above. Not really convinced that screaming works either. Honey catches more flies than vinegar. Especially with someone like you who is screaming at the wrong people in the wrong way for probably the wrong reasons.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 4 weeks ago:
Who exactly are you going to form groups with? I am a bit lost on where you would even get started on something like that. Most groups I have seen advertised or have any success are extremists I wouldn’t want to be a part of. I don’t want to go back to being a Trotskyist just to have any meaningful impact. You berate neurodivergent and queer people specifically as not getting off their ass, yet those are the kinds of people in the ranks of these organisations. It’s not like your average person is going to go and join the Labour party either.
Not all situations are like America. Here in the UK the backsliding is happening with the traditionally left leaning party who got in power using after massive fuck ups by the conservatives. So the right wing lost hard, but the other party have moved towards them. So you can’t even say it’s an issue with the alt-right like America. Instead it’s actually an issue with the left wing party and left wing moderates. Voting for and allying with them has enabled this behavior. It has enabled them to go after transgender people specifically. Ironically the conservatives might have actually done better in this case, as they haven’t expressed issues with queer people in recent times to my knowledge.
- Comment on That's a good question 1 month ago:
Okay so what makes pine trees dicks? I knew about Jesus being in the wrong month and about taking over the pegan winter festival, but nothing about dicks.
- Comment on Win win 3 months ago:
Honestly your asking the wrong person here. I would suggest maybe starting with Krapotkin or Bakunin who were some of the early anarchists. That or just looking up anarchist philosophy and history. Anarchists have a history fighting against both fascism and some marxist tendencies like the Bolsheviks.
- Comment on Win win 3 months ago:
They definitely do have positions and beliefs. I am not sure how much you actually understand anarchism. Anarchist “nations” have even been established before, but they tend to get invaded sooner or later. While they do sometimes ally with Marxists you would be correct in thinking they have few permanent allies. Hence the getting invaded part I guess.
- Comment on Win win 3 months ago:
I think we all like law and order
Have you never met any anarchists?
- Comment on Anon sees a happy couple 4 months ago:
I really am not sure that’s true. I think that has more to do with socialization than one actually being more competitive. I am supposedly a guy and I rarely feel that competitive over stuff like gaming, and that’s despite having anger issues for a good portion of my life.
As someone else said misogyny tends to push women away from these communities as well.
- Comment on Anon sees a happy couple 4 months ago:
I mean I am at least normatively a guy and I would have to consider a relationship with an alien. Could definitely be interesting. Humans are very flawed creatures and are frequently disappointing.
- Comment on Anon sees a happy couple 4 months ago:
You know I am honestly not so sure. I have seen people who definitely aren’t healthy, and probably not emotionally secure who get and sometimes keep relationships. It’s a lot more complex than you think. Some part of this is because obviously people with similar issues want to be together, but I think as well that things like physical attractiveness do have a role. It’s also the case that being a nice person and being emotionally stable aren’t actually the same thing, and often don’t go together. In fact to me it seems like people who have issues are actually less judgemental. Some of the worst people are those who have never struggled with anything.
It’s like how people have this concept that they either are or aren’t worthy of love. I don’t think that’s even a valid idea to begin with as there is no universal standard for what people want in a partner. Someone either wants you or they don’t, worthiness just isn’t a large factor.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 7 months ago:
Can you link a source that isn’t pay walled?
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 7 months ago:
Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.
Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.
Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.
As for “free energy”, no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 7 months ago:
Not really, no.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.
It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 7 months ago:
That’s a lie. Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces. They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass. Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 7 months ago:
Nuclear actually releases less CO2 than renewables, because renewables aren’t nearly as clean as you think they are. Those solar panels and wind turbines have to be made somehow. The things needed to make solar panels and batteries aren’t exactly great for the planet to mine and manufacture.
This concept of 100% clean energy is a myth, there are just more and less polluting sources. Nuclear being the least polluting, with fossil fuels being the worst, and renewables in the middle.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
I know manufacturing panels and batteries have a significant environmental cost. Being a net negative though I am not sure about. Could you link some sources?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
How many of those incidents killed anyone? It’s the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.
You can argue all you want but unless you have something that’s actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
Yes it can. Pretending it’s that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that’s exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that’s irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that’s irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
That’s actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn’t put nuclear reactors in Germany.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
You can’t call nuclear dangerous when it’s literally safer than many other energy sources. It’s like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
Wait are you saying that renewables have too much environmental cost to make?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
Which cities? I haven’t heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
Since when? There are dams all over the place.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 8 months ago:
This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It’s also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won’t go nuclear.