Climate stupidity

Did you know that your contribution to climate change is based on how rich you are?
Obviously, if you are rich, you are able to get your car fixed so it doesn't blow out lots of black smoke.
Obviously, if you are rich, you can invest in renewable energy ideas like solar panels.
Obviously, if you are rich, you have many options available to you in order to reduce your "carbon footprint" because money is no object.

Well, apparently you would be wrong.

By being rich, you must therefore be contributing far more to climate change... not because of your lifestyle, but because you're rich.

What counts as "rich"? It's some arbitrary value someone made up.

Why do most people "know that climate change is mainly caused by rich people"? Because they assume that every rich person has a private jet that they use to go shopping with every day.

Why is climate change "mostly suffered by the poor"? Well, there's no real reason... it's just something they made up because they don't like the idea that some people have more money. If they can claim that poverty is a result of climate change (instead of poor life choices or poor circumstances a person was born into), then they can claim victimhood and reparations for year - decades - to come!!

What a victory!

And this is why I opposed the "global climate strike" on 20th September 2019. It's nonsense.
It's nonsense because the solutions don't aren't proportional to what the supposed "problem" is.
The "problem" is presented as "climate change", but the "solutions" are all about getting rid of rich people.
I did my bit for the strike: instead of walking, cycling or getting a lift from a co-worker, which is what I usually do to get to work, I drove myself.

This is why kids would have been far better staying at school... they would have been able to get educated instead of getting brainwashed by the left-wing, anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Climate disaster

Here's an advert for something which I gather will be a global event.

It's idiotic.

It's idiotic from a number of perspectives.

Scientifically:

1. There are many scientists who disagree with the "common opinion". They get shut up, shut down, and some find it easier to just leave the profession rather than struggle on in the vague hope of changing minds.
2. There doesn't seem to be much said about why increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is truly bad for the environment. Sure, speculation is that it will increase the 'global' temperature, which is speculated to cause ice caps to melt, which is speculated to raise sea levels. A lot of speculation. But the earth has coped with high levels of carbon dioxide before.
3. Man-made carbon emissions are only a part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. Even if all humanity cut carbon emissions, it won't prevent the rise, only delay it. (I accept that some people might consider this to be a good enough reason, although I disagree. It's only an opinion anyway.)
4. What is the 'ideal' global temperature of the earth? No one knows. It's an arbitrary number with no real scientific backing.
5. What is the 'ideal' sea level? Again, no one knows. This really is an arbitrary number entirely based on people living at the coast.

Practically:

1. Almost every society in the world is dependent on fossil fuels. Banning carbon emissions will bring civilisation to a halt (at best), likely sending it back a few hundred years. (I accept that some people don't think this matters enough, but I seriously doubt they can convince the whole of humanity.)
2. Even those who are 'true believers' continue living lives hypocritical to their beliefs: flying around the world for conferences, protests and to bring awareness to the 'problem'.
3. The amount of money which is being invested into trying to change the weather (the full cost by some proposals being in the trillions of US dollars) would be better spent helping poor people moving house from the coast to somewhere higher up, and helping island nations re-locate too. It would likely be cheaper.

Evolutionary:

1. Evolution is all about change over time. If we believe this is how all species came into existence, why must the climate be denied an evolutionary experience?

Socially:

1. The climate alarmism is just another issue that has been highly politicised and is polarising people even more.
2. The two sides of the debate interestingly seem to be divided much like the political left and right, giving the impression that the issue is more political than practical.
3. Such protests keep people out of their educational institution and out of their workplace.
4. The information provided is cleverly disguised to look like it says more than it does. (For example, find an answer to points 4 and 5 of the "Scientifically" section above.) The issue prevents people from doing their own research and finding accurate statistics, instead making people regurgitate the same logically flawed statements with no proper backing.

This protest on the 20th September is a complete waste of time. The science is far from 'settled'; the consequences exaggerated; the premises assumed; the proposed 'solutions' flawed. Children would be better off remaining in school (although, if their education is about promoting the protest, etc., then perhaps they are better off not being in school!), and adults would be better off working for the day, contributing to society and making some money.

I will not be joining people on the protest. I'd rather be 'protesting the protest'! If I meet anyone on the protest, I shall enjoy mocking them.

But animals do it too!

A number of times I've heard the argument of "But animals do it too!" when having the homosexuality debate. "Therefore," the argument goes, "it's natural."

Well, if you say so...

Animals also fight to protect the lives of their unborn young.
"Therefore," says I, "if you want homosexuality to be natural, then so is the pro-life option!"

Stop killing babies. They don't have the privilege of being born yet... and I thought liberals fought the cause of the under-privileged.

Don't be a hypocrite. Give babies a chance.

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly biased

There's been a lot of talk about Dave Chappelle's new show Sticks and Stones. A lot of people really like it, but apparently "those who matter" don't like it.

The reason? Because it offends their precious sensitivities.
It's crazy. I'm not a fan of Jimmy Carr because I think his comedy goes too far and is overtly sexual. However, I think he does have some good jokes, but I can't be bothered to sit though a load of stuff I don't find funny just to hear the bits I might like.

It shows that we're all different. And that's a good thing.

Critics don't agree. They think we should all be the same. Maybe it's just that real critics have left the profession and we're just left with a bunch of idiots pushing their personal opinion.

Here's the score from Rotten Tomatoes (taken today):

And here's something else interesting:

No audience reviews? But see what happens when you click on the link:

It seems to me that Rotten Tomatoes is just waiting for a negative review to put up on the page. They don't want people to really think that Dave Chappelle is good or funny.

And that's what we call bias.

Climate Change goes progressive!

Climate "science" has been pushed so far that in order to get anything fresh, it has to appeal to the progressive agenda. This video explains.

By including progressive attitudes in so-called "science", it simply creates a bigger divide. Those people who were sceptical before will only be more sceptical. It's simply another bandwagon for the political left to jump on.

Unfortunately for those in favour, people on the political left are starting to get bored with such agendas that don't really have any practical benefits to help make life easier and/or better. For an example, look at the #WalkAway campaign in the USA.

If climate change really is as big of a threat as they are trying to make out, there needs to be real, practical solutions for all people, free from idiotic political agendas (such as the USA's Green New Deal proposal which has now been shown to be a farce). Since that isn't happening, is it really any surprise that people are sceptical?

Duolingo is left-wing and authoritarian

The popular language-learning website, Duolingo, is great for learning languages.

I use it, and I think it's great. Well, I used to. Now it's just "average". Why?

Because they are submitting to the ridiculous gender ideology of the left... and preventing people from discussing it.

Her wife???

Why does it have no comments? Because of the "locked" status (the padlock next to the number of comments).

Duolingo are forcing their users to have gender ideology normalised, and then preventing any discussion about it.

Duolingo has discussion so that people can understand why a particular sentence or phrase has a particular translation... furthering their language knowledge.

But when it comes to forcing their ideology on you... no, you can't discuss those sentences.

The very fact that they have to lock a discussion is alarming. Why do they even need those sentences? Just have something that everyone will be happy with.

If people are not happy with a man marrying a woman, then the future of the human race is in jeopardy! There is no controversy with men and women marrying each other. So why create it?

The negative score shows how unappreciated the sentence is. Surely that means it's time to take it off?


Note:
This comment gets a discussion... because it isn't promoting the new gender ideology.
But this comment doesn't get a discussion.
This comment says it all: one comment about how comments will be deleted... and then the discussion is locked.
Double standards?!?!

I guess "progressivism" isn't open for discussion.
Progressivism = Authoritarian ??


I had found this discussion which was still allowed. Thankfully, I saved the discussion because... you guessed it! The discussion is now locked, and the comments that were not deemed 'progressive' enough have been deleted.

Here is the discussion:

eighsse

Odd situation: I'm not complaining about any of these comments one way or the other. I don't really care about gay or not gay. But why were there already green upvote markers on all of the pro-gay-inclusivity comments and already red downvote markers on all of the anti-gay-inclusivity comments when I came here, as if I had voted on them before? I've had this app for a long time, but I sure don't remember doing that. ?

OldMansChild

I only see seven comments in total. You've got more there? Anyway I think duo often deliberately constructs some odd sentences to impress the learners, so there is no need to debate around them.

Thomasco3Plus

To be honest, this sentence is more about political agenda, and the German team shouldn't be inserting their own political views into language learning.

JWestDEPlus

It's not a political view. It's a statement about daily life. In the real world. But if you're so insistent on removing politics from Duolingo, then should they also remove "She is the Mayor?" in case that offends you too?

Junge645479

It's language learning. Are you advocating that because someone might disagree with homosexuality, one should not learn how to refer to it in that new language? On the contrary, wouldn't it equip the learner with the vocabulary necesarry to express their disagreement? I exist and I love my husband, you don't have to agree with it.

BenNew3

What if it was "she" instead of "he"? Doesn't that also come with an agenda (of reinforcing heteronormativity)?

BaggyT

Personally, I think it is all about the politics. Especially with what's going on in the US. The truth is, if Duolingo stuck with sentences that supported the status quo, no one would care (except the very extremist fringe... who likely aren't on Duolingo anyway) and the conversation would stick to discussing the language. But these sorts of sentences are a deliberate attempt to normalise 'progressive' lifestyles.

I have no issue with homosexual people because they are people. But I have my own views on the homosexual lifestyle choice and I don't see why that ideology should be forced on people who came here to learn a language.

It's not about "well, if they don't have 'his husband' then they shouldn't have 'his wife' either"... because it's not about constructing every possible sentence. It's about giving people the tools to understand and use the language. If a person understands how "his wife" and "her husband" work grammatically, then they should have the tools to satisfy whatever gender ideology they want.

Junge645479

I'm gay. I'm not just a theoretical topic of your discussion. This question is not being forced on me, it's acknowledging me. I live my entire life seeing others acknowledged without problem, but whenever I am, it's a problem to many people. Imagine what living like that might be like. Sorry that I might want something specifically useful for my everyday life reflected in the thousands of phrases I'm looking at.

Regardless, the point of showing this sentence is to show that there isn't a specific word for gay husband, or some special colloquialism if you want to express a same-gendered marriage. You can't know that before seeing what the sentence is as commonly used, because literal translations aren't always the way to go if you want to sound native. Languages are so full of special caveats that you need to be exposed to everything, or you're setting yourself back.

You seem like you're offended from the outset and are rationalizing, and trying to come up with justifications for your preformed opinion, and in the end it just points out your logical blind-spots.

BaggyT

So, when you sign up to things online, are you actively looking for those things to acknowledge your lifestyle?

For me, I signed up to Duolingo to learn a language, not to be subjected to an ideology.

And sure, this sort of language might be useful for some people, but does it really need to be pushed so early in the course? I'm only a short way in. I don't have much of an issue with alternative lifestyle being talked about later on as a step towards fluency, but at this stage, there's no need for it at all.

In the current age of the speedy growth of technology (and population), everyone is getting lost in the wave, businesses included. It's increasingly harder to stand out. Companies seem to be trying it by "going woke" because they think that being at the forefront of this new ideological push is the best thing for their business. There are many facets of my life that are rarely acknowledged by websites and businesses. I get over it.

I just want to be able to learn a language without the rest of the ideological trash. Duolingo said that that's what it was there for. It seems they are not.

Junge645479

No, I don't expect that when I sign up. Why would I? I'm sceptical of when companies try to appeal to me purely for their own gain. The first time I saw a gay Duolingo question (which was months after I first started, by the way, so it's not early for everyone) I showed it to my husband, whose reaction was, "geez, Duolingo going for the PC points." But the alternative is that companies try to pretend I don't exist. I'm fine with Sprite never trying to appeal to me, but Duolingo is a language learning app, and it's supposed to give me ways to communicate. I'm gay, and the ways I communicate involve referring to my life. You're upset that you're not gay but there's a gay question, are you equally upset that (I'm going to assume) you're not a business owner, but there are questions from the perspective of a business owner? As someone with a dog, it would be strange for me to say I have no need for questions about someone with a cat, because the point is not that it all relates to me or my values, but that it filters the entire world, and all it might contain, through a new language--because being able to label things and express the variety of the world is literally the entire point of a language. I find it cynical, also, that you frame this all as "trash ideology." That's a way you get to see it because everything is already geared to suit you and acknowledge you. My life is my life, and it always feels so strange to see myself being categorized just so people can either condemn me or use me for brownie points. In the end, despite whatever Duolingo's motivation is, your proferred alternative (as I see it) is that everyone pretends I don't exist, which to me seems just as ideological, and lacking in those human capacities that should rather be used as antidotes to cynical, dogmatic thought. When did Duolingo promise you it would never bring up that gay peple exist and use language, including German? You know, like I do? I don't recall, and if you don't like it, you're free to use another service. And just to pile on, I don't see how you can separate a gay person from their "lifestyle choice," so I don't know what it is you want if it's not the complete omission of gay people from all media. I also take issue with what I see the phrase "lifestyle choice" as commonly conveying, because it attempts to paint every gay person as a monolithic entity. I have very little in common with a lot of gay people. When some don't marry, nor even have relationships, when some are bankers, some are painters, some are extroverted, some are introverted, some don't like pride parades, tell me, what is the lifestyle? If your overall issue is just that it's a company referring to gay people, why is that worse than them referring to straight people? Can you give me a logical argument that doesn't stem from some kind of dogmatism, which, in a supposedly free society, should have no bearing on me (or on Duolingo) just because you really want it to?

And that's when Duolingo put their authoritarian foot down. As is almost always the case, it seems this person, with their alternative sexual lifestyle, has a chip on their shoulder.

It is unreasonable to demand that all people are supportive of all aspects of your life (especially decisions concerning sexuality), otherwise you'll play the 'victim' card. Sorry. The truth is that all people get an element of respect just for being people. Your actions determine whether you are a nice person or not.

Personally, I know homosexual people who are very nice and good friends. I also know heterosexual people who are devious, liars, and generally not nice people. Sexuality is not the determining factor in any case.