News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I stand by that. Mitigation doesn't improve anything, it only makes things bad at a slower rate. Nothing actually gets better.
Are you under the strange impression that it's just as easy to improve things whether or not harm is being mitigated?
Because I'm pretty sure it's easier when it is.
Which is why this will improve things. No, not on its own. Nothing is ever improved on its own when it comes to complex systems. You are reducing one of the most complex systems we know about, climate, to simple black-and-white terms.
I'm under the impression that it would be a lot easier to improve things if the billions spent supporting Israel were instead spent on climate change mitigation. That's not black-and-white, but it's a clear conflict between the administration's words and their actions.
Yes, again, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Very few people here want the money spent on Israel.
That doesn't mean acting like everything else that the Biden administration does is worthless because of it. It is possible to have massive criticisms of a political administration and acknowledge when they do something good.
Domestic clean energy manufacturing is a good thing. Bringing jobs to former coal communities that are depressed communities due to the coal no longer being mined is a good thing. Climate mitigation is a good thing. This helps with all of those things.
Pretending everything is awful because one thing is awful achieves nothing. Neither does making every Biden or Harris thread into a complaint about the U.S. aiding Israel. Who exactly do you think you're going to convince here? How does this constant complaining help Palestinians?
My only point was to highlight how the Biden administration has it's priorities backwards i.e. millions for climate, billions for Israel.
I'm venting frustration. That's all the internet is good for anyway. Complaining doesn't matter, your arguing doesn't matter, nothing we post matters.
What an extremely narrow way of looking at a vast network of computers containing most of the world's knowledge. Do you mean to say you've never used the internet to enlighten yourself in any way? Read a scanned-in book? Watch a digitized documentary or lecture? Nothing?
I spend hours poring over the amazing things available on the Internet Archive. So much media that you can learn from!
Substance farmers in third world countries even find uses for the Internet- all kinds of farming tips. There was an article I read some years ago about a village in sub-Saharan Africa where they basically had one guy who had internet access and farmers were constantly coming to him to get farming advice.
But you think the only thing that the internet is good for is venting your frustrations?
Honestly, that statement makes me sad for you.
I misspoke.
I was only talking about posting. Obviously the internet is far bigger than just the comments section.
I think that's still a very narrow view of things. I have made lifelong friends on internet forums. I went to a meetup in August of this year and had the time of my life with the people I finally got to meet face-to-face. I can honestly that it was one of the most enjoyable three days of my life and I can't wait until we do it again next year. I also have friends in other countries that I met on forums who I've been talking to privately for years now.
And, of course, you can learn things from forums too. There's plenty of things people post on Lemmy that contain interesting information. Communities like c/science has lots of interesting and informative posts.
It was enjoyable because you got to meet them face-to-face. Without that face-to-face interaction, it's all hollow. If the internet facilitates a meet up then that's great, but the comments section itself is a pale comparison to real human interaction. That's why I don't believe arguing on the internet has any value.
Also, forums are not comments sections. That's a different medium. Forum topics can be bumped in perpetuity, forum posters are identifiable by an avatar and a tagline and all sorts of stuff, but a comments section is ephemeral by its very nature. We're two user names briefly interacting for a while and then that's it. This doesn't matter.
No, it was enjoyable long before that. Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I find enjoyable.
And I thought we were talking about Lemmy here. Lemmy is a discussion forum.
Enjoyable, but hollow. Like junk food.
Lemmy is a link aggregator with a comments section for every link. A forum isn't built around links, it's built around community. On a forum, our discussion here would bump the thread up to the top of the forum topic every time we post. Forums are built for long term discussions over months and years, rather than ephemeral topics that fade off the front page in a day or two.
They're different mediums.
No. Not hollow.
Just because you haven't developed any real friendships with people online says a lot more about you than anyone else.
People used to have friendships solely through letters. People who never met and yet thought of each other fondly and shared their lives with each other.
There's many collections of these published over the years. I recommend the book 84 Charing Cross Road about a very close friendship that developed between a book lover in New York and a bookseller in London who never met in their lifetimes.
Not in comments sections. IRC is better for that.
Once again, you do not get to tell me about my friendships or how meaningful they are.
Comment sections are no different than sending letters. My friendships with people I met on forums are no different than the relationship between Helene Hanff and Frank Doel except their correspondence was far slower and there was far less of it.
I get that you can't make such friends. It's bizarre to me that you think this is a universal thing even when you're directly being told it isn't.
Letter correspondence, too, occurs over long periods of time. It's like forum discussion, the medium just too different to compare.
A comments section is ephemeral, this conversation lasted a few hours and now we might never talk again.
Do you think I'm lying about my friendships? Why would I lie about them?
No, but I don't think I was saying your friendship is impossible anyway. I said arguing on the Internet is pointless and that you can't convince anyone of anything here, and then you dragged me off topic. Enjoy your friendships, as unlikely as they are - friendship can happen in unlikely places after all.
But no matter how much you might wish it, nothing you post will impact the election even slightly. You have to log off and talk to people face-to-face for that.
Well I certainly can't convince you that it's possible to make friends wherever people can regularly communicate, that's for sure. I'm not sure why considering it's been long-established.
This will really surprise you. You will probably say they had no real friendship until they met in person even though it's clear they did:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marriage/comments/oepidv/is_there_anyone_who_met_their_current_spouse/
This is what I said. You interpreted this as me saying that friendship is impossible, but I wasn't intending that. I do think it's hard, and shallow, but sure it can be done.
What I think is impossible in comment's sections is political action, which is what we were talking about before you brought up the power of friendship.
You have to log off to change people's minds about politics.
Yes, I know you think you understand my friendships better than I do.
You don't.
You don't know me, you don't know my friends.
Stop pretending you do. Stop implying I'm lying.
It may be hard for you to make friends. It may be that your friendships are shallow. Stop telling me mine are because you have no fucking idea.
This is the stupidest attempt at gaslighting I have ever seen.
You'll be happy to hear that Biden had invested billions into climate change.
https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress
Also
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
You:
You misinterpreted what I said.
If we stopped supporting Israel, we'd stop burning the fuel we use to support them. Our support for Israel requires burning fossil fuel. We should stop doing that.
I understand the fallacy, thanks.
Did I say "Ignore A" though? I just meant to highlight the contradiction.
Also, your link clearly says:
Looks like we're not getting A. But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!
That's one part of the article, yes. And your last claim requires a citation.
Again, I understand the fallacy. I trust you will amend your previous statements? "Billions for climate change"?
Again.
I. Didn't. Say. This.
I haven't said that. I am not saying that. I don't know why you keep fucking accusing me of saying it.
Sure sounds like there's only one billion per year. Billion.
So, sure. Let's say 1 billion per year for climate change. Compare that to 17.9 billion in the past year for Israel.
The priorities are fucked. That doesn't mean I'm using the “not as bad as” fallacy, that means I'm highlighting how we could be spending a whole hell of a lot more on climate change. I just want the money spent on Israel to be spent on climate instead.
I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Thanks for the discussion.
You asked me to amend what I said.
I did, and because I did, you accuse me of moving goal posts. What??
I hate this website.
Comment removed, thereby proving my point.
Or it could be based on the way you act just because someone is disagreeing with you.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the "millions" part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn't fund Israel?
That's still an order of magnitude more support for Israel than climate, which still supports my point about the administration's priorities.
I doubt we could meet our goals if we simply transferred Israel's funding to climate, but I never claimed that.
No it isn't (math) and yes you did (quoted).
17.9 billion is an order of magnitude higher than 1 billion. Do you know how orders of magnitude work?
Also... you didn't quote anything? Here's what I said:
Easier. We do have to stop supporting Israel to meet our climate goals, but that alone will not be enough. We need to do way more than that. If I miscommunicated that I apologize.
Mmk
Edit: I'm not sticking around to discover how these arguments evolve again and again.