mzw_mzw

Supranational entities are just as bad, except even less responsive to local conditions.

A burning dumpster full of medical waste would be better than Twitter, so fortunately the bar is low.

The rejoicing one tends to hear around this place is from the apocalypse mongers, gleefully trading stories about how global warming will kill us all in exactly the same tones as fundamentalist Christians in the 1980s spinning lurid tales about the sinners being tortured in Hell. Seriously, the parallels are uncanny.

You mean the agreement that was never passed by the Senate, and therefore has no legal authority in the United States?

Good thing it's not gonna get extracted all at once, then.

It's interesting, but it's not surprising. There's a hive-mind on HN when it comes to anything associated with oil. The most ludicrous, unscientific, repeatedly debunked theories about environmental damage from fracking are uncritically believed, conspiracy theories about "oil barons" and Mideast wars are the order of the day, and of course you can't go five minutes without someone happily reminding us all that soon God, er, global warming will punish us sinners.

The article states that the US military investigated it, so it's not an odd thing to say at all.

> In any case various international experts have stated that there is a viable case for war crimes to be made, based on the video evidence.

"Various international experts" can be counted on to pronounce any military activity whatsover by the United States as a war crime (while ignoring or even excusing the behavior of non-Western states), so that's of little use.

> I agree with the gist of your post, but Sometimes the winning move is not to play. And if your safety is on the line, your life in jeopardy, or if proposed changes to government will soon put your life in jeopardy, "running away" is clearly the best move.

Fortunately, that's completely irrelevant to current events in the United States.

> It's a fairly crap hypothesis

That's the only even remotely true thing in this entire comment. HN would really benefit without all the frantic paranoia and cinematic apocalypse-mongering that has unfortunately become the default position around here. Keep it to Alex Jones, please.

Right. Who are you going to believe, Wikipedia or your lying eyes?

I'm guessing you aren't old enough to remember how awful the state of the environment was in the United States back in the '70s. It's like night and day to compare then and now.

> Of course not.

Ok. So the original commenter's idea of Trump having some sinister scheme to leave the Canadian border un-walled so Americans can flee en masse as the mainland is destroyed by global warming, is absurd. That's all I was asking.

> one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats

The ACA is not "health care." It's an insurance regulation. The conflating of the two is a useful narrative but it is not accurate in any way.

> There are really not that many fighting on the internet about who said what about who's sexual identity.

And yet, there are enough to create a terrifying chilling effect for anyone whose beliefs don't fit in to the narrative, especially in hard-left milieus like college campuses or major tech companies, and the rest don't speak up against them.

> I think our leaders should figure out how to do that while still winning elections.

Do you want a pony, too?

Look, we're not talking about straight up charity. You can talk people into charity; despite the standard narrative, the United States is quite generous in that regard. What you're asking for is for us to reduce our standard of living explicitly so other people can pollute. That's going to be a hard sell.

Dire enough that the population of the United States is going to have to evacuate en masse to Canada?

Really?

You posted a literal wall of text that makes the comment section impossible to read. That's spammy in my book. Five examples would have been more than sufficient; do you really think some masochist was going to click through every single one?

Do you think American voters are going to be happy about sacrificing their own well-being explicitly so that other people can pollute/deforest more? Do you think that's a platform that will win elections?

> First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people.

You speak about deforestation in the US, but there are more forests in the United States now than there were at the time of the Revolutionary War.

And if the President was selected by popular vote, that would mean something.

It isn't, so it doesn't.

> A carbon tax mostly taxes industry.

And the poor never purchase anything that was made by using industry, so they certainly wouldn't have the costs passed on to them or anything.

> But he'd keep the border with Canada open, so Americans can flee there if they need to.

See, this kind of loopy apocalypse-mongering is why you guys are having such a hard time persuading average voters that your cause is legit. Under what possible worst-case scenario are Americans going to need to "flee" to Canada? Is that one-foot ocean rise over the next hundred years going to flood the United States all the way to Grand Forks?

I didn't hear a lot of Democrats complaining about a "de facto one-party state" when they were chirping excitedly about gaining a permanent demographic majority a few months back, so forgive me if this sudden concern over the topic does not come off as entirely sincere.

No, they really didn't. The Electoral College is not some sort of state secret. Presidential elections have worked that way for over two hundred years. Complaining about the winner in the EC becoming President is like complaining that if we'd counted score by the number of strikeouts instead of runs, the Indians would have won the World Series. True, but so what? We don't count by strikeouts, we never have, and if the rules changed the teams would have played differently so you can't draw a useful parallel anyway.

Please don't post spammy messages like this on HN.

That just pushes the problem back, unfortunately. Do you trust the people who designed the algorithm? Even if they were wonderful, apolitical idealists, do you trust the people who maintain the systems after those guys leave the company to stick with it, no matter what? After all, this election is the Most Important One In Our Lifetimes, so surely it's okay to put our thumbs on the scale just a little bit in the name of truth and justice... it's for the sake of the children/gays/whoever, you know... what kind of heartless monster would just stand by when they could make a difference?

Ultimately the only way to really address this problem is to have a diverse variety of competing news sources so at least they aren't all captured in the same way at the same time. There's no way to line this up with Facebook being the One News Source, any more than if it was the government doing it.

It's not just a source of Facebook clickbait, it's one of the worst sources on Earth: nothing but empty outrage baiting and virtue signaling. I guess he watched his own talk and decided it would be more lucrative to switch to the Dark Side.

Do you trust them to break up all the alternate reality bubbles, or just the ones they don't like?

What's truly dangerous here is that one organization has so much control over what news people see.

Since the Earth is a nonsentient ball of rock and dirt, who will be given the unaccountable political power to represent it in the legal system?

Whaaaaaaat? Higgins, and people who agree with her political views, will be given that power? Smack my head, what are the odds!

What a ridiculous joke. "Kids" aren't suing anyone. Cynical adults who haven't been able to get their way through the democratic system are trying to ram their policy preferences through the courts, and they are abusing innocent children to do it. In a saner world, that judge would have called Child Protective Services.

So, no war crimes at all then. Yeah, figured.