No...the manufacturing is occurring in China, it's literally coming out of chinese facilities that are controlled by the Chinese state and industry management. One could just as easily say it's China's responsibility to turn down manufacturing contracts based on their inability to take those contracts without delivering huge amounts of CO2.
It's entirely unrealistic to think the US can or should fix China's grid and industrial processes. It's literally a non-starter and is essentially just saying China is "owed" the right to pollute because other countries did in the past.
And even if you actually believed what you're claiming, what is the solution here? The US scales back manufacturing and craters the world economy (including for China's)? Or are they suppose to pay their own GDP out to China so the Chinese government doesn't have to scale back their imperial ambitions and focus on solving domestic issues that are destroying the planet? Where do you realistically think China is going to put that hypothetical payday if they're already unwilling to scale back their own wasteful, ancillary domestic programs?
You're trying to pretend China isn't the second largest economy in the world, it's just not convincing. It's way more efficient for countries that can afford to fix their own emissions, like China and the US, to do so and then help poor, developing countries that actually need financial and material support meet their climate goals.
Pretending the US can fund the entire world's transition is, frankly, idiotic because your same backwards-looking logical gymnastics can be applied to almost every country that is smaller than the US. It's an unserious solution.
Implying that the US needs to not only retrofit their own grid but also China's is nonsensical...
China has benefitted economically from their emissions, they are the second largest economy in the world. They're not some backwater third-world country at this point, they can afford to take responsibility for getting their own emissions under control. They in fact must, because no one can afford to fix their problems for them.
Perhaps they could save on emissions by closing down some of their concentration camps.
I've also been told that despite emitting close to a third of the world's over all emissions, China produces less per capita than some developed countries so climate change is giving them a pass.
Oh, perhaps not. I may've just understood how you're using the search. /s is just a straight search if the directory, I don't know that it can be used to generate dynamic results like that. Go figure.
You can do a commandline "dir /s *.log" to search an entire directory it works better than the normal file search generally. Unless I misunderstand what you're asking.
I feel like if Lindsey Graham was to be struck in the face pudding would come out of his ears and nose. Just the impression I get from hearing him over the years and observing his big, sloppy pudding-head lolling around on his body.
I don't think it's really that simple from many trans peoples' perspective, as it places an obligation on them to out themselves before they even talk to a person. Many trans people's goal with transition is not to live as "trans" it's to live as their target gender, not some "other". Being trans is not a sexuality.
A better solution would be to have people who don't want to have the possibility of ever dating any trans person put that as part of their profile.
If people have an issue with doing that then it kind of reveals the truth of the issue for what it is.
Not just dicks, but dicks mixed with other art so it just completely pollutes the training data and the AI has no idea how to draw anything without it kind of looking like a dick. Dicks with human and animal faces, boats shaped like dicks, dick buildings and landscapes etc.
It would take an immense amount of bad data to actually work, but it would be funny.
I'm betting the reason they want access to "moderate" your projects is to train their AI. Literally looking to steal artists work before it's out the door.
I do understand how the brigades can be annoying for sure, but I don't mind arguing with tankies, -- I think it's actually really useful for exposing their propaganda for what it is. It helps expose normal people to counter arguments so that they might become a little more aware, rather than just seeing propaganda go unaddressed and being morel likely to assume it must then be true.
The only issue I have personally is if the mods are in on it too and delete your posts/comments because you start to make a bit too much sense.
I was actually banned for linking to the wiki about the Uyghur genocide and the death toll estimates from the Great Leap forward. It's not about the gore, it's about them trying to distance public understanding of the true horror and extreme violence that took place at Tiananmen etc.
The CCP's objective for at least the last decade or two has been trying to make the government in China apoear "normal". Before this latest era people understood clearly that China was extremely authoritarian, but that understanding is being eroded as the CCP puts up a civilized facade, when that's not the reality -- they're still brutalizing people it's just so horrifyingly systematic and industrialized that you can't even see it on the surface anymore due to how they doggedly chase information and dissidents.
They achieve this by downplaying events like Tiananmen, invasion of Tibet, Uyghur genocide, brutalization of HK etc. They exercise the most extreme measures to silence dissidents even when they are in other countries, and they repeat over and over again how the west is "just as bad!" until it becomes background noise. Having tankies modding communities helps supercharge this effort by allowing them to remove anyone who confronts that narrative, leaving only what they want people to see.
Tankie mods don't moderate in good faith though, to do so would entirely undermine their political objectives. That's kind of the point of the thread here -- to defederate so that the tankies aren't deciding what people can or cannot see and say.
I don't see how the charter idea would actually help with that but maybe I'm not understanding the mechanics of how other mods "weigh in" on ban appeals from other instances.
Honestly once you sort of realize that you can't be on the left and also support authoritarianism/fascism (regardless of the label or intent) the factionalism kind of isn't as troublesome or confusing.
You end up with those who believe in supporting progress informed by rational, current understanding of reality and then you have those who cling to failed ideas the same way conservatives do.
The left can debate solutions and data reasonably without splitting into contradicting camps, people just need to always check and see if they're actually oriented towards the defining principles of left wing politics; bolstering human rights and well being, strengthening democratic institutions and outcomes using the most current understanding of the world we have available to us right now.
The left, by definition, flexes and adapts to reality to achieve an outcome, conservativism is when people try to bend reality to fit their ideology.
Weapons should be used to strike whatever targets will help bring the speediest collapse of the Russian invasion, up to and including targeting Putin.
Russia has shown no restraint in trying to hit Kyiv or in trying to kill president Zelensky, it does not help Ukraine or the west in general to tie the Ukrainian military's arm behind their back.
[...] or watch the USA and the bulwark of democracy it represents around the world be destroyed.
Ok...but I'm watching that occur right now under Biden anyway. Like, dems desperately need to stop moving to the right, the distinction that you're trying to draw is becoming less and less meaningful with every lesser of two evils elected.
We need a party that allows fighters to lead the way, not fascists and corporate lapdogs. The party politics need to change yesterday, it's difficult for many voters to see that happening if neoliberalism isn't kicked to the curb.
This is what I don't understand about establishment dems playing chicken with our Democracy, their neck is on the line too.
I really don't understand why they think making a show of being Republican Lite is ever going to start working. If someone wants a fascist they're just going to vote for a full-on fascist, not a half-fascist.
We know this because there are photos of bodies and bicycles smeared into a paste [Source. Warning Blood/Gore].
And because people who were there literally said that's what happened:
"The shooting was going on and people were still running to try and block the tanks, which were travelling at high speed, some positioning buses in the road. But the tanks crushed the buses and people, they didn’t care. People’s bodies were merged, moulded to their bicycles. They were flat.”
[Source: Shao Jiang to The Mirror]
The CCP has desperately tried to cleanse the most brutal images and interviews of the massacre from the Internet, but even 30 years on they can't completely scrub it clean. There's a reason The Pillar of Shame monument is designed as it is.
No...the manufacturing is occurring in China, it's literally coming out of chinese facilities that are controlled by the Chinese state and industry management. One could just as easily say it's China's responsibility to turn down manufacturing contracts based on their inability to take those contracts without delivering huge amounts of CO2.
It's entirely unrealistic to think the US can or should fix China's grid and industrial processes. It's literally a non-starter and is essentially just saying China is "owed" the right to pollute because other countries did in the past.
And even if you actually believed what you're claiming, what is the solution here? The US scales back manufacturing and craters the world economy (including for China's)? Or are they suppose to pay their own GDP out to China so the Chinese government doesn't have to scale back their imperial ambitions and focus on solving domestic issues that are destroying the planet? Where do you realistically think China is going to put that hypothetical payday if they're already unwilling to scale back their own wasteful, ancillary domestic programs?
You're trying to pretend China isn't the second largest economy in the world, it's just not convincing. It's way more efficient for countries that can afford to fix their own emissions, like China and the US, to do so and then help poor, developing countries that actually need financial and material support meet their climate goals.
Pretending the US can fund the entire world's transition is, frankly, idiotic because your same backwards-looking logical gymnastics can be applied to almost every country that is smaller than the US. It's an unserious solution.