The Random Thread of Random Randomness

QFT
Climate is changing. if you go by the reasoning "leftist scientists pushing their agenda", i could go for the equally dumb "scientists paid by corporations to hide the truth".
But even if we don't want to look at climate changing, it's criminally dumb to avoid the elephant in the room: the fact that the human race is currently altering the atmosphere.
I'll try to keep it simple (and by doing this, i will leave out a lot of factors): during the jurassic (around 200-150 millions yrs ago), the percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere was A LOT higher than the actual. the CO2 was absorbed by plants (mostly algae); when algae died a part of the CO2 remained trapped inside them. That CO2 was no more part of the atmosphere cycle. fossil CO2.
The large majority of petroleum is dated to that period.
By burning petroleum, we set free all the CO2 that was trapped inside it. A quantity of CO2 that is not a part of the actual cycle of our atmosphere, and so cannot be filtered by the amount of plants and organisms that actually live on earth.
Because the filter keeps the aquarium clean, til you don't alter the balance; but if you add ashes to water, the filter won't be enough to keep the water clean.
Leaving aside facts as deforestation, the point is that we are altering the equilibrium, adding to the air a increasing amount of CO2 that was "dead".


An increase of CO2 is also tied to increases of temperature, but i suppose this second logical step it's too much complicated, as first of all people should acknowledge that we are altering the athmosphere, and the substances freed with the use of fossil fuels, won't magically disappear. They are there, they will do something.
but "Nah, it'll be fine".

 

I am always shocked at how difficult it is to even get climate science deniers to even acknowledge the low threshold of facts you just described. Well said though!

 

The global warming thing didn't bother me. Global warming is real, and human activity is exacerbating it. The question is how bad is it. The question is how big of a response we should make. I should point out that Water World was based on the premise that the polar ice caps melt leading to an all ocean cacatopia, but they let the environmental mission be implied. They didn't beat viewers over the head with it.

I personal think global warming is in the top ten serious issues that people and governments should address. It's not in the top five, but it shouldn't be ignored.

The thing that struck me as hyperwoke is the "Men bad, women good" taken to 11 (on a scale of a possible 5). The misandry in West World season 2 and Game of Thrones season 8 turned a lot of viewers away and this Last of Us description is far more misandric than these. It looks like the writer is saying all men are either rapists or rape enablers. That's really bad misandry. Not your every day "women good, men" misandry in a typical commercial.

where the savvy girlfriend has to correct her bumbling boyfriend's foolishness.

I never played Last of Us, but I did watch a lot of play through because it's a great story. The story centers around Joel who is essentially a good man dealing with a tough situation. The new show handler is basically saying "There are no good men."

My understanding is that it has elements of wokeness but it's not drowning in this. We'll see when it comes out.

I guess when it comes to social justice issues, it's mainly "Men bad, women good" that bothers me. For all SJW issues I will either overlook it or I will support it.

 

Is this a specific reference to a particular show that does this in a derogatory way? Or are you simply talking about the common troupe of a stooge and comic? I think modern gendered variants are just the reversal of the Richie and Lucile format. They rarely strike my as misandry or as a constructed message beyond the format.

 

I suppose it comes down to what you believe the goal of politically correct speech to be. If the goal is not to ostracize or demean people based on derogatory language then I think it is a reasonable expectation. Civility shouldn't be too much to ask of society. If it is being used as a virtue test and lacks understanding of the speakers intent then I think it instead acts in opposition to its goal.

I have been fortunate to have lived in a wide variety of places in USA. And some forms of politically correct/incorrect speech are more a feature of dialectics than intent. That being said, I have heard some incredibly crass and offensive statements that lack tact or thought be defended as "the free market of ideas."

 

PC is definitely a connotative phrase. I assumed you didn't mean the usage of slurs ect.

 

But, is there a boulder-run trap?

 

Many flowers do. It is magnificent!