Skip Navigation

帖子
51
评论
125
加入于
2 yr. ago

London-based writer. Often climbing.

  • 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!

  • 已删除

    Permanently Deleted

    跳过
  • Depends on your definition of 'disability', but I guess they meant because she's visibly overweight, but that doesn't mean she can't be in Starfleet.

  • 已删除

    Permanently Deleted

    跳过
  • Reminds me of the great anecdote: After the casting of Patrick Stewart, someone said to Gene Roddenberry, 'By the 24th century, won't they have cured baldness?’

    Roddenberry replied, 'By the 24th century, they won't care'.

  • 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.

  • My line of argument does not require that the oil be used here.

  • And they said British manufacturing was dead.

  • Well, we need both and we should keep exploring both, although we can probably get away from gas sooner.

    Norway is actually a great example of what I think we should do: keep using oil in order to fund a rapid transition to green power. It's working well for them!

  • If it was in my power, I would certainly jail the CEOs and nationalise the oil companies, so I'm with you there.

    However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster.

  • The government is investing record amounts in green energy, approving record numbers of green projects and rewriting planning law so it can approve even more.

  • I didn't say the Saudis would produce less, I said we'd use the same amount but buy more off the Saudis.

    We do need to move away from oil dependence (and we are), but until we do that, we need oil from somewhere and we may as well get it here.

  • If we immediately stopping drilling for oil here, we won't use less oil, we'll use the same amount of oil, but buy it off the Saudis, who suck.

  • The problem with 'cracking down' on benefits is identical with the problem of 'cracking down' on immigration. These things are just not real problems and the people who think they are problems are flat wrong. You can't do anything about unreal problems, because the people who believe in the fake problems just don't believe in reality.

  • Wind up music boxes. I don't know why, but regardless of the melody they play, I find them super creepy.

  • Love the idea that the Enterprise just flies about blasting its own theme tune on every subspace channel.

  • The Marxists Internet Archive has a huge amount of left/communist non-fiction. It's very broad in its scope, so there's Stalin and Mao on there alongside William Morris and HG Wells. You could also check out Timothy Snyder and Rebecca Solnit, who both had interesting books about resisting fascism from a more contemporary viewpoint.

    In fiction, there's The Man in the High Castle, by Phillip K. Dick, which has a similar alt history concept as Roth's The Plot Against America. And of course there's George Orwell's writing, both fiction and non-fiction, much of which explores the nature of fascism. I'd also recommend Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits, if you like magical realism.

  • Seems really good, thanks!

  • Actual lol, cheers.

  • Thanks! I worked out what it was and you're right, it was embedded in an app. I realised both times it popped up was while I was typing, and a bit of searching online revealed it was indeed from my keyboard app, so I uninstalled it and wrote them a message telling them to respectfully go fuck themselves.

  • I don't speak it super well, but I can get by.