America - The Official Thread

[NotThePrez]

Not sure if sarcasm.

Fairly confident @ROAD_DOGG33J is being sarcastic.

I’m sorry your post referring to truth as BS has been flagged for misinformation.

There’s a point though-redefining terms rewriting history is the act of a totalitarian regime.
Imo you’ve taken the bait!

Oh, of course! There's no way way the right would try to re-define and re-write American Hist-oh, wait...(CBS News)

Earlier this month, Idaho Governor Brad Little became the first Republican governor to sign into law a bill that restricts educators from teaching a concept called critical race theory. And more could follow: Nearly a dozen states have introduced similar Republican-backed bills that would direct what students can and cannot be taught about the role of slavery in American history and the ongoing effects of racism in the U.S. today.

Well, at least states aren't trying to alter their historic role in American Sla-well, damn (NY Times).

Now, a flurry of proposed measures that could soon become law would promote even greater loyalty to Texas in the state’s classrooms and public spaces, as Republican lawmakers try to reframe Texas history lessons and play down references to slavery and anti-Mexican discrimination that are part of the state’s founding.

The proposals in Texas, a state that influences school curriculums around the country through its huge textbook market, amount to some of the most aggressive efforts to control the teaching of American history. And they come as nearly a dozen other Republican-led states seek to ban or limit how the role of slavery and pervasive effects of racism can be taught.

Idaho was the first state to sign into law a measure that would withhold funding from schools that teach such lessons. And lawmakers in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Tennessee have introduced bills that would ban teaching about the enduring legacies of slavery and segregationist laws, or that any state or the country is inherently racist or sexist.

I'm not even gonna be snarky with this next one: Several Republican state governments have also been trying to punish schools that teach the less-kind-but-still-accurate aspects of American History (USA Today).

Republican lawmakers in Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri and South Dakota filed bills last month that, if enacted, would cut funding to K-12 schools and colleges that provide lessons derived from the award-winning project. The South Dakota bill has since been withdrawn.

The Iowa bill expands its threat to school funding by suggesting any teachings with “any similarly developed curriculum” could face repercussions.

Several government entities threatening overreach and repercussions to organizations that teach things that the government doesn't like? Nope, doesn't sound totalitarian in the slightest. /s

And an important clarification from the CBS News article:

However, proponents of critical race theory say it does not teach that any race is inherently racist or is superior, but how race is ingrained in our history.

Critical race theory is not typically "taught in elementary and secondary schools because it is based in legal theory," Jazmyne Owens, of public policy think tank New America, told CBS News. She said the wave of legislation "is really aimed at erasing and whitewashing American history."

Owens pointed to a Texas bill that just passed in the state's House that opponents say bans any discussion of privilege and white supremacy. "In the long term, bills of this nature, and those that intend to censor the way that race and systemic racism is discussed in the classroom are way more harmful to students," she said.

"Protecting education means being honest about the parts of our history that hurt, particularly chattel slavery, and being proactive in ensuring that we end current reproductions of racism and inequity in classrooms and beyond," Owens said.

Now, if you can provide examples of other entities reecently trying to re-write American history though government action, I'd love to see it.

 

[jjaisli]

That's funny that he posted that image because that's exactly what those idiots that stormed the capital, Trump himself, Giuliani, this Liindell moron, all those in Congress that tried to stop the certification, they were all trying to prove that 2+2 does equal 5.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the election was fairly held and the vote totals were right (2+2=4) they all screamed, NO IT DOESN'T!!!! 2+2 equals 5!!!!

Because B.S. conspiracy theories is ALL they've got. You actually have to feel badly for these deluded people. And I would if they weren't so dangerous.

 

[Groundfish]

Really, this is where the USA is going as each year we go further down the tube…Truth decay.
In my state 30 years ago forest management practices changed drastically-basically ceasing all logging tree cutting and undergrowth clearing in forests all to protect an owl that we now know became endangered not by the effects of mankind but by being outcompeted by better adapted owl species.
Lack of forest management or sustainable timber harvest has not only resulted in loss of jobs-closing lumber mills etc but also has resulted in tremendous amounts of fuel for fire.
Elected officials in the majority blame climate change.
Truth decay. I certainly won’t discount climate change as a concept or reality but the truth is these fires are the result of 30 years of mismanaged forests.
Hot dry weather makes it worse but weather didn’t cause us to abandon care of our forests-the Sierra Club and other eco terrorists did that.
The problem is that people can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact-thus majority opinion becomes truth-in people’s minds-the Internet and big tech exacerbate these problems since they effect so much on policy and public opinion-but they know nothing of forest management-they are computer people and have little to no experience beyond an occasional trip to Yosemite…https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay.html
The fires are just one example of the real world results of truth decay.

 

[GranTurNismo]

It was just a prank Bro.

FTFY.

 

[jjaisli]

Really, this is where the USA is going as each year we go further down the tube…Truth decay.
…https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay.html

I think on THIS, most people here would agree.

In my state 30 years ago forest management practices changed drastically-basically ceasing all logging tree cutting and undergrowth clearing in forests all to protect an owl that we now know became endangered not by the effects of mankind but by being outcompeted by better adapted owl species.
Lack of forest management or sustainable timber harvest has not only resulted in loss of jobs-closing lumber mills etc but also has resulted in tremendous amounts of fuel for fire.
Elected officials in the majority blame climate change.
Truth decay. I certainly won’t discount climate change as a concept or reality but the truth is these fires are the result of 30 years of mismanaged forests.
Hot dry weather makes it worse but weather didn’t cause us to abandon care of our forests-the Sierra Club and other eco terrorists did that.
The problem is that people can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact-thus majority opinion becomes truth-in people’s minds-the Internet and big tech exacerbate these problems since they effect so much on policy and public opinion-but they know nothing of forest management-they are computer people and have little to no experience beyond an occasional trip to Yosemite…

But then you reach and just take a legitimate statement about the overlap of news and entertainment and people with an agenda and just bend it to suit whatever YOU think it should be without anything to substantiate it. NO, that's not how it works.

 

[Groundfish]

But then you reach and just take a legitimate statement about the overlap of news and entertainment and people with an agenda and just bend it to suit whatever YOU think it should be without anything to substantiate it. NO, that's not how it works.

No. https://californiapolicycenter.org/environmentalists-destroyed-californias-forests/

It’s truth decay-environmentalist evo terrorist types are generally majority in large cities. You’ve got people who literally choose to live in densely populated cities (which inherently in order to exist in those areas you have to cooperate more and have less freedom-a more socialist approach is required by population density alone but I digress)
who make environmental policies for thousands of square miles of forest.
The majority is always going to “go green” whatever that is because it’s majority. It’s opinion that gets taken as fact by these folks and made into policy.

That’s one example. But there’s many many more of how people in densely populated areas tend to start to think in certain ways-it’s sort of out of necessity if you live in that environment. Plus let’s face it-it’s difficult to think independently when literally everyone in the city thinks they understand what’s best for the environment.
The problem is it’s only their OPINION which gets reinforced by those around them as well.
The end result is you get people from these cities shutting off jobs and the economy in rural areas then as years go by to add insult to injury you burn their communities to the ground and blame the weather.
Truth decay-we need to look objectively at problems like these fires and consider the facts.
We need to consider why clearcutting and controlled burns were done.
We need to revitalize a sustainable logging industry in rural regions.
It’s not only better for the environment it’s better for the people.
But I know it will never happen because what do the socialists in the cities care?
They banned those plastic straws and sleep soundly at night if the sounds of protesters firebombing police precincts don’t wake them up!

 

[Rossell2]

Groundfish. Your whole post about truth decay made my brain decay.

 

[Danoff]

We need to consider why clearcutting and controlled burns were done.
We need to revitalize a sustainable logging industry in rural regions.
It’s not only better for the environment it’s better for the people.

Your article says "timber harvesting" which is not the same as logging. Not sure if you understood that, but it's worth pointing out that these are not exactly interchangeable terms. I generally agree with your article that the approach of wildfire suppression combined with a complete lack of forest maintenance will ultimately result in large wildfires than can end up being worse for the forest. But rather than whine about partisan politics, I think most people would agree with this if they looked at the situation, and actually that the left is pretty receptive to ideas for wildfire prevention and forest maintenance, perhaps more today than in 1990.

Here in Colorado, we absolutely do rake the duff, set controlled fires, and overall work hard to maintain the forest. But drought is a tough problem. Also up until now, the public has not really been so energized by wildfire prevention and forest maintenance as it has firefighting. That may be changing.

 

[Groundfish]

It’s kind of like why there’s an electoral college.
People who built houses and live in rural forested areas are probably far better equipped to determine policy than a bunch of pot smoking hippies living in a concrete jungle.
Ok maybe that was harsh but still people need to recognize that maybe these big cities are not the most friendly to the environment physically as well.
Huge swaths of wastewater discharged into the ocean but deep where no one can see.
Tremendous power draw to the skyscrapers and apartment buildings…
There’s a reason we need to reorganize things with relation to elected reps etc and that reasoning is the same as for the electoral college.
The big cities make policies that affect rural folks.
When truth decay occurs and the idiots try to “be environmental”
You get large catastrophes like fires-loss of jobs etc.
It’s no good.

 

[Danoff]

It’s kind of like why there’s an electoral college.
People who built houses and live in rural forested areas are probably far better equipped to determine policy than a bunch of pot smoking hippies living in a concrete jungle.
Ok maybe that was harsh but still people need to recognize that maybe these big cities are not the most friendly to the environment physically as well.
Huge swaths of wastewater discharged into the ocean but deep where no one can see.
Tremendous power draw to the skyscrapers and apartment buildings…
There’s a reason we need to reorganize things with relation to elected reps etc and that reasoning is the same as for the electoral college.
The big cities make policies that affect rural folks.
When truth decay occurs and the idiots try to “be environmental”
You get large catastrophes like fires-loss of jobs etc.
It’s no good.

Which do you think draws more power, a skyscraper, or a sprawling rural landscape with the exact same number of people each living in an individual structure?

Rural folks misunderstanding the problems of urban areas is no better than the opposite. How about we weight everyone's vote the same instead of pretending that some people should get more representation in government?

 

[ryzno]

Which do you think draws more power, a skyscraper, or a sprawling rural landscape with the exact same number of people each living in an individual structure?

Rural folks misunderstanding the problems of urban areas is no better than the opposite. How about we weight everyone's vote the same instead of pretending that some people should get more representation in government?

I'd say we use less, crappie internet when it works is a starter. Why bother turning on the computer, we also like sitting on the porch. We tend to spend more time outdoors overall.
Can't afford the bill so you run bare minimum... Say what you want but we are efficient and frugal.

 

[TexRex]

Why quit if you haven't done anything wrong?

CANCEL CULTURE!!!

Wasn't an insurrection. Homies just out here putting up a gallows for fun. MAGA humor on a different level.

Okay, so...a bit of devil's advocacy here. Political hyperbole...exists.

The nature of political speech is such that emotions tend to be at a heightened state, and so use of hyperbole is to be more readily expected than in artistic expression or everyday speech. There's also so much political speech and it so often falls on deaf ears, so speech itself is more likely to be hyperbolic. With political speech benefitting from more robust protection than any other speech, and taking into account the aforementioned factors, political hyperbole shouldn't be taken at face value.

As for the gallows itself...

Not only was it just hilariously shoddily constructed--I've built picket gates more capable of bearing the weight of a human body--but it wasn't of sufficient size and, from what I've seen of it, it didn't possess features necessary for an actual hanging.

I'd say we use less, crappie internet when it works is a starter. Why bother turning on the computer, we also like sitting on the porch. We tend to spend more time outdoors overall.
Can't afford the bill so you run bare minimum... Say what you want but we are efficient and frugal.

Efficiency and frugality are very different things, and that one consumes less by no means suggests that what one does consume is consumed efficiently.

Concrete jungles have issues like concentrated pollution and heat island effect, and people within them may use power differently, but the very nature of population density allows for more efficient power delivery, distribution and consumption. People in major population centers with greater density frequently live closer to destinations to which they frequent, such as place of employment, everyday needs retail, dining and entertainment, and they are capable of using more energy efficient public transportation to greater effect.

This does not make population centers better than rural areas.

While population density is advantageous for energy consumption, it's not really conducive to production, especially agricultural production.

Major population centers and rural communities are different. They do things differently. They have different priorities. So why should one have more per capita sway in electoral processes than the other? Why should the vote of one be marginalized by the vote of the other?

 

[Danoff]

I'd say we use less, crappie internet when it works is a starter. Why bother turning on the computer, we also like sitting on the porch. We tend to spend more time outdoors overall.
Can't afford the bill so you run bare minimum... Say what you want but we are efficient and frugal.

Apartments in buildings with 5 or more units use less energy than other home types - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

An apartment in an apartment complex uses less energy than a single family home, and less even than a mobile home. Makes sense right? Fewer exterior walls for each unit means less heat transfer. Breaking each apartment out into its own stand-alone structure would mean more surface area to exchange heat with the outdoors. Beyond that, economies of scale allow for better insulation and more efficient power and air conditioning.

 

[ryzno]

Apartments in buildings with 5 or more units use less energy than other home types - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

An apartment in an apartment complex uses less energy than a single family home, and less even than a mobile home.

Not if you don't any ac running. Ever.

 

[Danoff]

Not if you don't any ac running. Ever.

Well that would be the same in both cases.

 

[ryzno]

Well that would be the same in both cases.

No like I said, no/limited internet for starters. My phone spends more time on a car charger than at home, you know you can charge your phone at work in your car with it off if you don't spend all day on it? Get over yourselves.

 

[Danoff]

No like I said, no/limited internet for starters. My phone spends more time on a car charger than at home, you know you can charge your phone at work in your car with it off if you don't spend all day on it? Get over yourselves.

Internet does not actually have a large energy footprint, so limiting internet doesn't actually do much to reduce the energy consumption of a particular structure. And yes, turning off AC applies to both rural structures and urban ones. I'd be happy for some of those rural houses to have a little more internet and a little less OAN.

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to charging your phone in your car, but the power generated by your car to charge your phone is not generated as efficiently as the power generated for an urban power grid.

 

[ryzno]

Internet does not actually have a large energy footprint, so limiting internet doesn't actually do much to reduce the energy consumption of a particular structure. And yes, turning off AC applies to both rural structures and urban ones. I'd be happy for some of those rural houses to have a little more internet and a little less OAN.

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to charging your phone in your car, but the power generated by your car to charge your phone is not generated as efficiently as the power generated for an urban power grid.

It's doing it with nothing running and the amount of energy it takes to replenish whatever little juice it uses is minimal at most. Again heat and ac... We just suffer. You never seen the memes about heat in the South? Why waste the electricity if it'll still be 87 degrees in our house?
Also we grill more than anything...

 

[Danoff]

It's doing it with nothing running and the amount of energy it takes to replenish whatever little juice it uses is minimal at most. Again heat and ac... We just suffer. You never seen the memes about heat in the South? Why waste the electricity if it'll still be 87 degrees in our house?
Also we grill more than anything...

You're not following. That applies to apartments as well, in the south, in the north, wherever. Does your grill not use energy? (propane and natural gas are still energy)

 

[Keef]

Apartments in buildings with 5 or more units use less energy than other home types - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

An apartment in an apartment complex uses less energy than a single family home, and less even than a mobile home. Makes sense right? Fewer exterior walls for each unit means less heat transfer. Breaking each apartment out into its own stand-alone structure would mean more surface area to exchange heat with the outdoors. Beyond that, economies of scale allow for better insulation and more efficient power and air conditioning.

I learned last winter that I don't need to run the heat in my second-floor apartment any time but on the very coldest of days, we're talking below 20 outside. My neighbor below's heat keeps me warm and I imagine the apartment above sandwiches some in as well. It stays pretty stable in here, even with three big windows and a sliding glass door.

 

[Brett]

I learned last winter that I don't need to run the heat in my second-floor apartment any time but on the very coldest of days, we're talking below 20 outside. My neighbor below's heat keeps me warm and I imagine the apartment above sandwiches some in as well. It stays pretty stable in here, even with three big windows and a sliding glass door.

On the opposite side of this, I learned in the last year and a half that running the AC a bit more and keeping the house a bit cooler than I had been only costs me a little more money. So I traded that little more money for much more comfort.

In the winter, I keep the house pretty cool and the heat does not kick on much.

 

[Chris30]

Honestly though they should give us another stimulus check as people are struggling now to make a decent amount of money. We had a few wildfires last year. One day it got up to 99 degrees last July. We would like to move somewhere where there aren't a bunch of fire hazards. Plus we can't breathe the heavy fumes/smoke.

I really hope that the pandemic won't last indefinitely. I was so hoping to do more traveling. Yeah we run the A/C a lot too, it's worth the extra expense.

 

[ryzno]

You're not following. That applies to apartments as well, in the south, in the north, wherever. Does your grill not use energy? (propane and natural gas are still energy)

Charcoal or over either fire pit(wood).

 

[Danoff]

Charcoal or over either fire pit(wood).

From an environmentalist standpoint, that's a step down.

 

[TexRex]

Curious how the discussion went from the Electoral College to "me cook food over fire." Only it's not really that curious. Just look at the way discussion elsewhere about people buying fake physical vaccination records instead of acquiring legitimate records upon vaccination--free at the point of vaccination while also having conferred protection against and mitigated the spread of a virus that's causing a global health crisis--turned into "people do what they gotta do for money."

It's not at all mysterious that this is the result of strawmanning and deflection, and it's disappointing that people allow these bad faith tactics for the sake of discussion. Only it's not discussion. It's manipulation.

 

[Danoff]

it's disappointing that people allow these bad faith tactics for the sake of discussion. Only it's not discussion. It's manipulation.

Is that aimed at me? I figured I hit the EC point hard enough and was actually somewhat interested poking at the "me cook food over fire" reasoning. Sometimes I get curious about the tangents.

 

[TexRex]

Is that aimed at me? I figured I hit the EC point hard enough and was actually somewhat interested poking at the "me cook food over fire" reasoning. Sometimes I get curious about the tangents.

I mean...yes and no. You're inquisitive, and I can appreciate that. I do the same thing. It was really aimed at those who employ these tactics on the whole.

Still, it may be better (and I'll confess I'm not entirely sure what "better" means) to strike a balance between indulging in tangents and continuing to prod at the original topic.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It’s kind of like why there’s an electoral college.
People who built houses and live in rural forested areas are probably far better equipped to determine policy than a bunch of pot smoking hippies living in a concrete jungle.
Ok maybe that was harsh but still people need to recognize that maybe these big cities are not the most friendly to the environment physically as well.
Huge swaths of wastewater discharged into the ocean but deep where no one can see.
Tremendous power draw to the skyscrapers and apartment buildings…
There’s a reason we need to reorganize things with relation to elected reps etc and that reasoning is the same as for the electoral college.
The big cities make policies that affect rural folks.
When truth decay occurs and the idiots try to “be environmental”
You get large catastrophes like fires-loss of jobs etc.
It’s no good.

Serious question here - have you ever been to a city? You describe them like how an 8 year old from an Amish family might...

People living in cities are not as different to you as you think they are (certainly the vast majority are not hippies), and the policies that emerge in cities that you find so hostile (somehow, even though they probably don't impact you very much) are done to manage the very real problem of many people and limited space & resources.

Rural people telling urban people how to live makes no more sense than urban people telling rural people how to live.

And @Danoff is right about efficiency. Surface area is the enemy when it comes to thermal losses (its why your hands get cold first) and so higher density tends to perform better than lower density.

 

[Danoff]

Rural people telling urban people how to live makes no more sense than urban people telling rural people how to live.

Yet this must be somehow untrue if one wishes to validate overweighted representation in the EC.

 

[Groundfish]

erious question here - have you ever been to a city? You describe them like how an 8 year old from an Amish family might...

People living in cities are not as different to you as you think they are (certainly the vast majority are not hippies), and the policies that emerge in cities that you find so hostile (somehow, even though they probably don't impact you very much) are done to manage the very real problem of many people and limited space & resources.

Rural people telling urban people how to live makes no more sense than urban people telling rural people how to live.

The quote should have read “set policies for their areas or regions”
I wasn’t trying to say rural people are smarter about policy or should set policy for people in other areas.
Interesting point as well is that farmers provide food for large amounts of the city dwellers-less dense population but large populations depend on that food.
It’s another reason why the electoral college makes so much sense.
Re my comments about freedom cities are inherently less free than rural areas.
In the country you can go out back sight in a deer rifle, hop on a dirt bike and go ride all over.
In a city your freedom of movement is severely restricted.
In a city you are forced to live more cooperatively with everyone else.
My point was it changes peoples way of thinking.
Dense apartment type housing is generally a much lower quality of life in many ways than a nice country home.
Less freedom less space…
Personally I don’t care much for congested cities, noise, traffic, restriction of movement, crime, lines to wait in, it’s not my preferred environment.
I would prefer an Amish life in the country to an apt in the city if given a choice.
Nothing wrong with those Amish imo.