frankPodmore @ frankPodmore @slrpnk.net

London-based writer. Often climbing.

---

Read more

Posts

34

Comments

376

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Touché.

Ironically, your statement lacks nuance.

Doesn't matter as long as they're exactly as knowledgable as I am or, failing that, slightly less so /s

Some sort of libertarian socialism, basically. Markets with co-ops and a strong welfare system provided principally by highly democratic local governments.

There is quite a range of options between continuing as you say we are and shooting people in the street. Again, enacting arbitrary violence against perceived enemies is literally what Trump is doing. This is not the path to take. Like all people calling for this kind of violence, you are assuming it won't be inflicted on you or anyone you like, but that is not what history suggests will happen.

Incidentally, another way the UK is not like the US is that carbon emissions are falling in the UK.

Okay, this isn't a court and it's absolutely fine for people in casual conversation to say he did something when there's strong evidence that he did.

Strictly speaking if he yelled 'I did it and I'd do it again' at the cameras on his way into court, he'd still be 'innocent till proven guilty' but no one would insist that actually meant he 'hadn't done it'. EDIT: Actually, strictly speaking, he'd still be 'innocent' under a strict definition after pleading guilty but before the jury pronounced him so.

In any case, as to our wider discussion, you'd then be disagreeing with many of the people here and arguing that people painted his face on a wall because he didn't do anything.

Fictional characters and real people are not actually the same kind of thing, and how people read them are not equivalent.

Any MBA?

Brian Thompson was not a billionaire. As for the 'unaccountable' class our side of the pond, just yesterday a prominent political megadonor and former hedge fund manager was banned from working in financial services, so neither side of your analogy stands up to very much scrutiny.

EDIT: I mean, guys, you could try the path of 'You can't trust the systems any more! The only choice is to ignore the law and inflict arbitrary punishments on people we dislike!' but it is not one that leads to leftist utopia.

Honestly, aside from what Mangione did and whether it can be justified, I just think this shows how America-brained so much of the UK is. The guy lives and committed his crime on the other side of the ocean in a context which does not exist in this country. I would personally prefer for him not to be executed but I don't understand what anyone's thinking when they use him as an icon over here.

I have this whole system where I alternate between poetry/non-fiction/fiction and contemporary/classic, so I always have about fifty books on my shelf and there's always an obvious next one to read. Like right now I'm reading some classic prose fiction so my next read is contemporary poetry.

Nuclear fusion, right? That's got to be the big one.

You may already have seen it, but I've found Lemmy Explorer to be much more useful for this kind of search than the native Lemmy search function.

/s indeed, but you did remind me of a cool image, above: the Earth (and the Moon) not only from space, but from the orbit of Mars!

And, below, the Earth as seen from Mars' surface:

It's the the tiny white dot, just left and up from centre.

Build houses on the mountain peaks and treehouses in the forests, all linked together with a series of zip wires. I see no downsides to my plan.

Yeah, it was very much built in the car-is-king era, which has left its scars. I've never lived there but I visit fairly regularly. It's not perfect but it's got a lot going for it. Cycle provision seems to be getting a lot better, for one thing!

This is a weird experience for me. Normally when I demonstrate that things are, in fact, the case, people just go very quiet. This is the first time I've had 'that's too much proof' used against me, so you at least get some marks for originality.

I do indeed get my information about the news from the news; again, it hadn't previously occurred to me to do it another way, so I guess I'm learning a lot! I'm not learning things like 'Why does this person I'm talking to on a website think websites are objects of scorn?' or 'Where do they get their news if not from the news?' but, still. It's not nothing.

Nevertheless, you're straying into 'not even wrong' territory, here. The things I said are happening, are happening, and while you can believe anything you like, including that things that are happening, aren't happening, that doesn't change the fact that they are, actually, happening. Since you're not amenable to things like evidence (about the news... from the news), I hope you'll forgive me for ending this conversation. Feel free to get in one last shot, but I don't intend to reply.

I was asked to prove first that Labour are moving us away from oil dependence, and then that they are investing record breaking amounts, approving record numbers of green projects, that they have eased planning law to build more green infrastructure, and that they're planning to do more.

The sources more than prove this. For example, when we have more solar power, we will be less dependent on oil. Labour are making this happen. I refer you again to the many different sources discussing other ways Labour are making this happen through the record investments that are also cited in the sources.

I acknowledged that there's some repetition. One for each of the claims would suffice, but I added more because I felt that 'record breaking' is a bit vague (record for this country or for a fiscal year or...?) so I used more than one source to show that this was a valid interpretation of the facts.

Your latter critique, that all the sources discuss what Labour 'will do' is just false. Some of them do, of course - because that's one of the things you asked me to prove.

I actually have a folder of saved tabs called 'good things Labour are doing' because I frequently have conversations with people determined to ignore these things. Could they do more? Yes, of course, and they should. Are they doing the things I've said they are doing? Yes.

I'm not especially keen on googling things for you, as it's publicly available information which is easy to find. I think a better question, given that these are straightforward facts widely reported in both the mainstream and specialist press, is why you don't think they're doing anything.

Might not be obvious, but every highlighted word above is a different link to evidence that Labour is, in fact, all what I claimed on climate change - and more. Some repetition, inevitably, but I wanted to use multiple kinds of sources. And I could keep going!

It's interesting you cite Norway because as I said elsewhere in this thread, they are a major oil producer and exporter who are also committed to green infrastructure. That's the exact approach I think we should take!

You are right that we have a lot of encouraging tech but deploying that takes time and money, and often an 'upfront' increase in carbon emissions. Other tech looks good but hasn't been proven to scale up or is still in the trial stage (as you akcnolwedge).

As I said, I agree with you that Norway is the model to follow; but they produce a lot of oil.