The people that organized and planned the Women's March that started the whole "movement" (if you can call it that) accepted and lied about bigotry and hatred. The entire movement was complicit with that bigotry since the beginning and anyone that called it out was called a racist. Even Vox didn'tcare. This is not the only example of "the left is blind to leftist bigotry" the reporting on antifa is another example. I am not saying everyone on the left is a bigot but that the left is blind to leftist bigotry.
You're giving Pewdiepie a lot of benefit of the doubt, exactly as he wants,
I have no idea what he wants because I am not a mind reader. Are you? Is Vox? I have seen enough lies about him to make me doubt it. Including, a video where he mocks media lies that take him out of context only to be used by media to take him out of context to say "he is nazi". Being edgy does not make you a nazi.
arguments to stop has to be seen as intentional.
You are assuming intent. What if he makes a lot of money because of the media hype? I don't know but from what I have seen of him he isn't a racist/nazi/alt-right w/e. He is an edgy youtuber comedian that memes.
off-color jokes should
Jokes are not secret nazi recruitment methods... Good gravy.
Jordan Peterson isn't a right-wing personality and alt-right hero (who associates with the right wing and is heavily promoted by the alt-right) then what is he
I said that calling him those things was very disingenuous. You have demonstrated why. It goes from " a personality watched by alt right or hero of alt right" to being alt right. In one instance you have control over your intent, belief and ideas. The other is guilt by 2nd hand association or being watched by people we don't like. I don't know what he is but he isn't alt-right. He doesn't have control over who watches him. What ideas does he have that is alt-right?
Barely manage to get by implies they can get by. The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.
Some people make poor choices and that isn't a justification for an economic policy that doesn't make sense. A national minimum wage of $15 an hour make zero sense. Maybe in New York City or Silicone Valley where the cost of living is so high but not in Montana or Wyoming where you can live off current minimum wage.
From the beginning it was bigoted and hateful but it was accepted, kept secret, and lied about because the left is generally blind to leftist bigotry and hatred. See reporting of antifa as another example.
Did the events described in the opinion piece not happen?
Sure. Smear campaigns and lies are best told with truth.
It makes leaps, implies intention, and conflates various internet cultures and people with "alt-right". Things are presented in isolation (How was the video recommended to him, does he normally watch anime review, was that video recommended by YT algorithm? How many other videos did he watch of the channel in question?). A few racial slurs does not a racist make. Racism requires intent. Are they said in jest or endearment (rap) or are they said with malice (actual racism). Calling Jordan Peterson a "right-wing personality and alt-right hero" is very disingenuous. "Dropping redpills" as in, "the wage gap is a myth". Yea, shame on him for attacking our ideological litmus test that is a complete lie based in faulty statistics and ideological propaganda.
Making nazi jokes does not make you racist or alt right ( I can't believe I have to even say this). Following people who have ideas that contradict left ideology does not make you "alt right".
I am curious if that is reflected in the study. If people are confident of the job market it implies that they can get a better job/more money if they try. If 60 % of low wage earners did not get raises , is that because of turnover? Is it only in regards to employees that stayed with the company for the full fiscal year?
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years....And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Averages mean little to the individual. If your life is "good enough" yet your raise this year wasn't as high as you want or inflation then so what? Sure, you are losing money in regards to inflation but your day to day expenses probably haven't changed or a rounding error of difference. Rent is still the same. Food is about the same. Transportation will be about the same. Most people at minimum wage probably do not see a change in their life because of inflation.
Comparing a horizontal average of two different working groups that have no bearing on individual life is hardly a good reason for a backlash. Are people really locked out of making more money because of these averages/reports? Obviously not when there is confidence in the job market. Executives and middle manage probably do not have the same turnover as anyone on minimum wage which can affect the averages.
It sounds like people feel like they can get a different/better job. What is the actual problem here? Minimum wage? I am sorry but have a national minimum wage set to $15 an hour doesn't make any sense. Maybe in the expensive cities like NY, SV, or LA but Montana??? Where the cost of living is dirt cheap and you can live off current minimum wage (albeit difficultly).
Disparity happens and is normal. It doesn't mean something is wrong. If people are confident about the job market then it sounds like people feel they can better their lot in life.
"The people at the top are getting richer and richer and everyday working families are not getting their fair share". Of course it is. Jobs abound but it's the rich guy that is screwing you over!
Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth. Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much. Paying labor less is not the only way to get profit.
If it is a "movement" (honestly not sure what to call it), then it has been going on for a while and this spike in downvoates for a youtube video is the most recent incarnation. The trend of disliking youtube videos have been going back for a few years now.
Do you really believe Vox opinion pieces? Good gravy man have some dignity and self respect.
"working methodically year after year to introduce his audience to alt-right ideology"... Everyone who doesn't think exactly like me is promoting alt-right ideology. The left is blind to their own bigotry and hatred and project that bigotry and hatred onto others that point it out. Hello Women's March.
I don't think the downvotes came because they excluded Logal Paul or PewDiePie or because those two have been controversial in the recent past. They haven't been in previous Rewinds and the trend of disliking the Rewinds have been growing but never to this extent. Hell, the rewind video even referenced the Suicide Forest and the PewDiePie chair.
Youtube is turning into TV 2.0 everything that is featured has to be polished with corporate fanfare and values. If it isn't corporate it isn't welcome. Soon (if not already) the top youtuber will be a corporation, TSeries. When that happens it will mean the end of an era for youtube. It's no longer about a single individual doing their own thing. It's about the corporate control that silences, kicks off, and campaigns corporate values.
This "civil war", as named by TFS, has been going on for a while in the form of the "Subscript to PewDiePie" campaign. Even slashdot covered it.
People have been hating youtube ever since it was apparent that google wanted a "certain" type of content and user. Subscriptions that don't work. The bell icon that is now the new subscribe button but no one knows how it works. Views and dislikes that disappear. Likes that appear and disappear. Comments that disappear. Disabling money transactions on live chats after the "adpocolypse". An algorithm that promotes creepy Spiderman videos to kids.
Yes, as a new competitor arises the Silicon Valley hive mind unites to stamp it out. Bitchute anyone? But their formula work!
"They allow all legal speech" is a misnomer. Youtube doesn't allow all forms of legal speech. Alex Jones had legal speech yet was kicked off for his speech. China allows all legal speech. The Soviets allowed all legal speech. Just don't upset the politburo and you can say anything you want.
But my internet started working properly again when the Obama Net Neutrality
I find this very hard to believe. The Obama rules were barely in use (if at all) when repealed. If you saw a change in your internet service that drastic it's more likely coincidence. Did the squirrel chewing on your phone line die? Can you prove that it was the Obama rules that "fixed" your internet?
Net Neutrality was enacted to stop rampant ongoing selective throttling of internet services
Not the Obama rules. They gave entrenched ISPs guaranteed monopoly status by increasing the barrier to enter the market. And it applied different rules for how internet was delivered. Cable companies had different rules than DSL which had different rules for wireless. Can the executive reclassify certain providers on a whim and cherry pick the regulations that classification has? The later, is a definite no. The executive cannot say "ISPs are telecommunication providers under Title 2 but by the way not all of Title 2 apply because we said so.".
It didn't stop throttling. Even Netlifx throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs to push for "Net Neutrality". Why would you believe/side with a company that dishonest about the issue?
which is important to all of us, especially the nerds on Slashdot...
If that were true, I wouldn't see opinion pieces linked as facts, empty rhetoric and name calling for any kind of disagreement. I rarely see anyone discussing the actual language of the law and the legal precedent that got us where we are today. Do you actually care about good law? Or do you care about what opinion piece you read that bastardizes the issue into small bits of digestible propaganda?
when pointed out that meat consumption is expensive and also damaging refuse to even consider reducing meat consumption.... I do know that by your own description you are utterly unwilling to do any of the most basic steps to help out, even ones which will save you money, right now, literally today with no investment on your part.
I didn't refuse to consider anything. You assumed and continue to assume what I have done or willing to do. Why don't you ask me directly if you are not sure. Yes, I already knew about it and do it! I go months without eating meat sometimes. I do enjoy eating meat and will do so when I want. Sometimes, I want a bloody red steak or chew on rib bones. Sue me. You are parroting talking points under false assumptions because I do not share the same piety. You are acting like a religious zealot proselytizing to an unbeliever.
I don't know what you've done with your life. I do know that by your own description
You know your interpretation of my description which is fundamentally wrong. My own description: " Even large changes to my lifestyle will not matter. I care about my standard of living and what I can do. I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels."
Does that mean I am unwilling to do things if it doesn't affect my living standard? The things I can do, can it influence per capita? If not why should I care per capita? Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent?
My point about Europe was in response to you claiming that you apparently care precisely about what other countries are doing.... here you in one sentence say that you don't care about what other countries are doing and then argue that it doesn't matter what the US is doing if other countries aren't doing anything, when my entire point was that other countries are doing all sorts of things
Bad wording on my part. As I said before, even large changes to my life won't matter. If the US and EU did everything that would not solve the problem. The entire US going to pre-industrial levels wouldn't change a thing. There is an entire world and many billions wanting a better life. I do not want to deny them a better standard of living and will not expect them to forfeit it because of climate guilt.
lower average carbon consumption
Average for American.
you don't want to do something which will save money for you, even if you don't have much money right now, and you are willing to keep doing things which you know cause damage to everyone in the long-term,
I should do something I can't afford because in 10 years I can make the money back and piety? I don't have money for these expensive things you ask for. Please, tell me how I am supposed to do these things I cannot afford.
eating less meat is a major way one can help out.
I said if I want to eat meat I will. Again, you don't know what I have done or how I have lived my life but expect more money and more changes to my life because Europeans think their shit doesn't stink and per capita. No.
you are unwilling to do any of the major steps that would actually be helpful.
Unwilling? My reference to religion is apt. You don't have any of the facts and yet start preaching the gospel on what a good follower should do as if I am an unbeliever because I haven't shown the same piety. What part of anything I have said made it seem like I was unwilling? I said I don't want my standard of living changed and I cannot afford a new car or solar panels.
I want a better standard of living. I want others to have a better standard of living too. Is that wrong? Should I feel guilty? I should abstain from that life goal because per capita and European condescension? Nothing I can do will affect the outcome.
I don't care about Europe and what they are doing. I care about my standard of living and what I can do. Per capita doesn't mean shit to my life and I don't want my standard of living lowered. I probably have a lower average carbon consumption so why should I concern myself about per capita when, again, it doesn't matter what the US does if other countries don't care.
I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels. Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent? You don't know what I have done or how I live my life but expect more money and more action. Fuck off. Because right now, it seems like you are preaching a religion. "Give up the loins of your decadence and forfeit the pleasures of life before God. Fasten your belts and shiver in winter for warmth and eat not the swine or drink the milk of Bos taurus. Carbon Tax will save thy children in the last days before the coming apocalypse. You will be blessed tenfold the tithing you pay toward Gods son the Green Savior. We are all carbon using sinners and must suffer to redeem our souls. In the name of God, his Green Son, and the Holy Carbon Tax. Amen."
Note, I don't deny AGW or think the science is wrong or w/e. I don't like the Fear mongering, harping hippy hypocrites, and the solutions those people bring.
TBH, I am over it. Future generations will be fine. Just like generations that came after the Black Death, the Fall of Rome, and the Late Bronze Age collapse. If future generations do hold a grudge it will be because they have inherited the bad habit of judging the past with modern morals, ethics and understanding.
Even large changes to my lifestyle will not matter. So why bother?
I do not want to lower my standard of living. If everyone in the US became Luddites and lived to pre-industrial standards, it still woudln't matter because other countries will not be as determined.
This is only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels.... fossil fuels are far more expensive and should be taxed at a higher rate that reflects their true costs of use.
Meanwhile, in France. I am not surprised that someone is making this suggestion while there are riots in France over fossil fuel tax increases that Macron just reversed on.
Yes, more taxes are the answer! More taxes never fail.
> tax that subsidize domestic production of fossil fuels include the expensing of exploration, development, and intangible drilling costs;
Can the US execute a successful war without fossil fuels? Do you think that might be important to national interest and a justifiably good use of taxes?
Slashdot Mirror
The people that organized and planned the Women's March that started the whole "movement" (if you can call it that) accepted and lied about bigotry and hatred. The entire movement was complicit with that bigotry since the beginning and anyone that called it out was called a racist. Even Vox didn't care. This is not the only example of "the left is blind to leftist bigotry" the reporting on antifa is another example. I am not saying everyone on the left is a bigot but that the left is blind to leftist bigotry.
You're giving Pewdiepie a lot of benefit of the doubt, exactly as he wants,
I have no idea what he wants because I am not a mind reader. Are you? Is Vox? I have seen enough lies about him to make me doubt it. Including, a video where he mocks media lies that take him out of context only to be used by media to take him out of context to say "he is nazi". Being edgy does not make you a nazi.
arguments to stop has to be seen as intentional.
You are assuming intent. What if he makes a lot of money because of the media hype? I don't know but from what I have seen of him he isn't a racist/nazi/alt-right w/e. He is an edgy youtuber comedian that memes.
off-color jokes should
Jokes are not secret nazi recruitment methods... Good gravy.
Jordan Peterson isn't a right-wing personality and alt-right hero (who associates with the right wing and is heavily promoted by the alt-right) then what is he
I said that calling him those things was very disingenuous. You have demonstrated why. It goes from " a personality watched by alt right or hero of alt right" to being alt right. In one instance you have control over your intent, belief and ideas. The other is guilt by 2nd hand association or being watched by people we don't like. I don't know what he is but he isn't alt-right. He doesn't have control over who watches him. What ideas does he have that is alt-right?
Barely manage to get by implies they can get by. The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.
Some people make poor choices and that isn't a justification for an economic policy that doesn't make sense. A national minimum wage of $15 an hour make zero sense. Maybe in New York City or Silicone Valley where the cost of living is so high but not in Montana or Wyoming where you can live off current minimum wage.
But calling the Women's March bigoted and hateful
From the beginning it was bigoted and hateful but it was accepted, kept secret, and lied about because the left is generally blind to leftist bigotry and hatred. See reporting of antifa as another example.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewi...
Did the events described in the opinion piece not happen?
Sure. Smear campaigns and lies are best told with truth.
It makes leaps, implies intention, and conflates various internet cultures and people with "alt-right". Things are presented in isolation (How was the video recommended to him, does he normally watch anime review, was that video recommended by YT algorithm? How many other videos did he watch of the channel in question?). A few racial slurs does not a racist make. Racism requires intent. Are they said in jest or endearment (rap) or are they said with malice (actual racism). Calling Jordan Peterson a "right-wing personality and alt-right hero" is very disingenuous. "Dropping redpills" as in, "the wage gap is a myth". Yea, shame on him for attacking our ideological litmus test that is a complete lie based in faulty statistics and ideological propaganda.
Making nazi jokes does not make you racist or alt right ( I can't believe I have to even say this). Following people who have ideas that contradict left ideology does not make you "alt right".
I am curious if that is reflected in the study. If people are confident of the job market it implies that they can get a better job/more money if they try. If 60 % of low wage earners did not get raises , is that because of turnover? Is it only in regards to employees that stayed with the company for the full fiscal year?
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years. ...And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Averages mean little to the individual. If your life is "good enough" yet your raise this year wasn't as high as you want or inflation then so what? Sure, you are losing money in regards to inflation but your day to day expenses probably haven't changed or a rounding error of difference. Rent is still the same. Food is about the same. Transportation will be about the same. Most people at minimum wage probably do not see a change in their life because of inflation.
Comparing a horizontal average of two different working groups that have no bearing on individual life is hardly a good reason for a backlash. Are people really locked out of making more money because of these averages/reports? Obviously not when there is confidence in the job market. Executives and middle manage probably do not have the same turnover as anyone on minimum wage which can affect the averages.
It sounds like people feel like they can get a different/better job. What is the actual problem here? Minimum wage? I am sorry but have a national minimum wage set to $15 an hour doesn't make any sense. Maybe in the expensive cities like NY, SV, or LA but Montana??? Where the cost of living is dirt cheap and you can live off current minimum wage (albeit difficultly).
Disparity happens and is normal. It doesn't mean something is wrong. If people are confident about the job market then it sounds like people feel they can better their lot in life.
"The people at the top are getting richer and richer and everyday working families are not getting their fair share". Of course it is. Jobs abound but it's the rich guy that is screwing you over!
Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth. Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much. Paying labor less is not the only way to get profit.
If it is a "movement" (honestly not sure what to call it), then it has been going on for a while and this spike in downvoates for a youtube video is the most recent incarnation. The trend of disliking youtube videos have been going back for a few years now.
Do you really believe Vox opinion pieces? Good gravy man have some dignity and self respect.
"working methodically year after year to introduce his audience to alt-right ideology"... Everyone who doesn't think exactly like me is promoting alt-right ideology. The left is blind to their own bigotry and hatred and project that bigotry and hatred onto others that point it out. Hello Women's March.
Youtube wasn't interested in showcasing them.
I don't think the downvotes came because they excluded Logal Paul or PewDiePie or because those two have been controversial in the recent past. They haven't been in previous Rewinds and the trend of disliking the Rewinds have been growing but never to this extent. Hell, the rewind video even referenced the Suicide Forest and the PewDiePie chair.
Youtube is turning into TV 2.0 everything that is featured has to be polished with corporate fanfare and values. If it isn't corporate it isn't welcome. Soon (if not already) the top youtuber will be a corporation, TSeries. When that happens it will mean the end of an era for youtube. It's no longer about a single individual doing their own thing. It's about the corporate control that silences, kicks off, and campaigns corporate values.
This "civil war", as named by TFS, has been going on for a while in the form of the "Subscript to PewDiePie" campaign. Even slashdot covered it.
People have been hating youtube ever since it was apparent that google wanted a "certain" type of content and user. Subscriptions that don't work. The bell icon that is now the new subscribe button but no one knows how it works. Views and dislikes that disappear. Likes that appear and disappear. Comments that disappear. Disabling money transactions on live chats after the "adpocolypse". An algorithm that promotes creepy Spiderman videos to kids.
Yes, as a new competitor arises the Silicon Valley hive mind unites to stamp it out. Bitchute anyone? But their formula work!
"They allow all legal speech" is a misnomer. Youtube doesn't allow all forms of legal speech. Alex Jones had legal speech yet was kicked off for his speech. China allows all legal speech. The Soviets allowed all legal speech. Just don't upset the politburo and you can say anything you want.
Drill baby drill.
At least fossil fuels and green tech have the same mantra now. Drill baby drill!
Finally some unity.
But my internet started working properly again when the Obama Net Neutrality
I find this very hard to believe. The Obama rules were barely in use (if at all) when repealed. If you saw a change in your internet service that drastic it's more likely coincidence. Did the squirrel chewing on your phone line die? Can you prove that it was the Obama rules that "fixed" your internet?
Net Neutrality was enacted to stop rampant ongoing selective throttling of internet services
Not the Obama rules. They gave entrenched ISPs guaranteed monopoly status by increasing the barrier to enter the market. And it applied different rules for how internet was delivered. Cable companies had different rules than DSL which had different rules for wireless. Can the executive reclassify certain providers on a whim and cherry pick the regulations that classification has? The later, is a definite no. The executive cannot say "ISPs are telecommunication providers under Title 2 but by the way not all of Title 2 apply because we said so.".
It didn't stop throttling. Even Netlifx throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs to push for "Net Neutrality". Why would you believe/side with a company that dishonest about the issue?
which is important to all of us, especially the nerds on Slashdot...
If that were true, I wouldn't see opinion pieces linked as facts, empty rhetoric and name calling for any kind of disagreement. I rarely see anyone discussing the actual language of the law and the legal precedent that got us where we are today. Do you actually care about good law? Or do you care about what opinion piece you read that bastardizes the issue into small bits of digestible propaganda?
Did you miss New Horizons?
If you missed the Pluto flyby there will be another flyby of a Kuiper Belt Object ((486958) 2014 MU) on January 1, 2019.
Moving at 36,373 mph and heading toward the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. It will be the 3rd man made object to leave the solar system.
Religion on brother. The Church of Holy Green needs more people like you.
when pointed out that meat consumption is expensive and also damaging refuse to even consider reducing meat consumption. ... I do know that by your own description you are utterly unwilling to do any of the most basic steps to help out, even ones which will save you money, right now, literally today with no investment on your part.
I didn't refuse to consider anything. You assumed and continue to assume what I have done or willing to do. Why don't you ask me directly if you are not sure. Yes, I already knew about it and do it! I go months without eating meat sometimes. I do enjoy eating meat and will do so when I want. Sometimes, I want a bloody red steak or chew on rib bones. Sue me. You are parroting talking points under false assumptions because I do not share the same piety. You are acting like a religious zealot proselytizing to an unbeliever.
I don't know what you've done with your life. I do know that by your own description
You know your interpretation of my description which is fundamentally wrong. My own description: " Even large changes to my lifestyle will not matter. I care about my standard of living and what I can do. I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels."
Does that mean I am unwilling to do things if it doesn't affect my living standard?
The things I can do, can it influence per capita? If not why should I care per capita?
Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent?
Build nukes.
I hate to break it to you but Ghandi died some time ago.
My point about Europe was in response to you claiming that you apparently care precisely about what other countries are doing. ... here you in one sentence say that you don't care about what other countries are doing and then argue that it doesn't matter what the US is doing if other countries aren't doing anything, when my entire point was that other countries are doing all sorts of things
Bad wording on my part. As I said before, even large changes to my life won't matter. If the US and EU did everything that would not solve the problem. The entire US going to pre-industrial levels wouldn't change a thing. There is an entire world and many billions wanting a better life. I do not want to deny them a better standard of living and will not expect them to forfeit it because of climate guilt.
lower average carbon consumption
Average for American.
you don't want to do something which will save money for you, even if you don't have much money right now, and you are willing to keep doing things which you know cause damage to everyone in the long-term,
I should do something I can't afford because in 10 years I can make the money back and piety? I don't have money for these expensive things you ask for. Please, tell me how I am supposed to do these things I cannot afford.
eating less meat is a major way one can help out.
I said if I want to eat meat I will. Again, you don't know what I have done or how I have lived my life but expect more money and more changes to my life because Europeans think their shit doesn't stink and per capita. No.
you are unwilling to do any of the major steps that would actually be helpful.
Unwilling? My reference to religion is apt. You don't have any of the facts and yet start preaching the gospel on what a good follower should do as if I am an unbeliever because I haven't shown the same piety. What part of anything I have said made it seem like I was unwilling? I said I don't want my standard of living changed and I cannot afford a new car or solar panels.
I want a better standard of living. I want others to have a better standard of living too. Is that wrong? Should I feel guilty? I should abstain from that life goal because per capita and European condescension? Nothing I can do will affect the outcome.
the next generation will ruin civilization ... One generation complaining about another has been a static theme in human history.
Considering nearly all civilizations have collapsed into ruin, a few generations were correct about the younger ones ruining everything!
While we are at it, we should make them nicer too. Murdering baby seals... Such jerks!
I don't care about Europe and what they are doing. I care about my standard of living and what I can do. Per capita doesn't mean shit to my life and I don't want my standard of living lowered. I probably have a lower average carbon consumption so why should I concern myself about per capita when, again, it doesn't matter what the US does if other countries don't care.
I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels. Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent? You don't know what I have done or how I live my life but expect more money and more action. Fuck off. Because right now, it seems like you are preaching a religion. "Give up the loins of your decadence and forfeit the pleasures of life before God. Fasten your belts and shiver in winter for warmth and eat not the swine or drink the milk of Bos taurus. Carbon Tax will save thy children in the last days before the coming apocalypse. You will be blessed tenfold the tithing you pay toward Gods son the Green Savior. We are all carbon using sinners and must suffer to redeem our souls. In the name of God, his Green Son, and the Holy Carbon Tax. Amen."
Note, I don't deny AGW or think the science is wrong or w/e. I don't like the Fear mongering, harping hippy hypocrites, and the solutions those people bring.
TBH, I am over it. Future generations will be fine. Just like generations that came after the Black Death, the Fall of Rome, and the Late Bronze Age collapse. If future generations do hold a grudge it will be because they have inherited the bad habit of judging the past with modern morals, ethics and understanding.
Even large changes to my lifestyle will not matter. So why bother?
I do not want to lower my standard of living. If everyone in the US became Luddites and lived to pre-industrial standards, it still woudln't matter because other countries will not be as determined.
This is only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels. ... fossil fuels are far more expensive and should be taxed at a higher rate that reflects their true costs of use.
Meanwhile, in France. I am not surprised that someone is making this suggestion while there are riots in France over fossil fuel tax increases that Macron just reversed on.
Yes, more taxes are the answer! More taxes never fail.
> tax that subsidize domestic production of fossil fuels include the expensing of exploration, development, and intangible drilling costs;
Can the US execute a successful war without fossil fuels? Do you think that might be important to national interest and a justifiably good use of taxes?