Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?

Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.

I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.

I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.

I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.

I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.

The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?

They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.

How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?

What are you doing?

Not turning potential allies into enemies?

What are you doing?

It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.

It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.

Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”

And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.

Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.

Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.

I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.

They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.

Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.

Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?

I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you.

Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.

Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.

Don’t. I already did a little write up about this a while ago, I work in orthotics and prosthetics.

This device was created by an 3d printer artist and tested by a cognitive science lab. It’s really not a medical device, and wasn’t tested to the same degree that medical devices are subjected too.

When testing devices that are actually made to help the disabled, the criteria isn’t just that the pt can utilize it, but that the utilization the device provides is greater than what the patient would be able to do without it.

None of the actions done by the second thumb are things you wouldn’t be able to do as an amputee in the first place. People are highly adaptive and will figure out ways to utilize their body or what’s left of their amputated limbs.

There are a few reasons this will never be utilized by disabled people. The largest one being that foot controls aren’t ever used in upper limb prosthetics, mainly because they only work when you are sitting, or standing still. If this has been made by a prosthetic lab they would have used myoelectrics, the same tech we’ve had for like 40 years.

Secondly, how is an amputee or disabled person going to don this device by themselves. A medical device that’s meant to give you more independence also requires help to put on?

And lastly, the main benefit of having a thumb in the first place is that it is opposible. The thumb isn’t really useful by itself, it’s meant to work in conjunction with other fingers for manipulation. If you wanted another place to hold or pin something in place you would just stick it in the crease of your elbow.

It’s a neat art project, but pretty limited as far as a prosthetic device. My main criticism is for the cognitive lab that partnered with the artist in the first place. The university is using this as a marketing device for their department, and shouldn’t be claiming it’s a medical device. If they were serious about it they would be partnering with actual orthotist or prosthetist or a biomedical engineering department, not cognitive science.

First of all, that guy looks like shit for a 34 year old. Doesn’t look like the hair plugs took as well as he hoped.

Secondly… This guy just went through like eight years of school and like ten of residency and fellowship to be a surgeon, and he just threw away his whole damn life to own the libs.

No hospital with an operating room is ever going to allow this guy to practice, even if he somehow gets away with a slap on the wrist. This is the exact type of scenario that hospitals dread. Texas Childrens is going to be sued, especially since they let him access patient information after he finished his rotation. I also think there are fines for the facility where a HIPAA violation occurred.

What a loser.

Ehhh, you would think that. However, China currently has more housing than people. I think at the moment the excess housing in the country could home an extra 150m people.

You can knock them for ignoring basic fundamental economic ideas like supply and demand, but it’s not like they have a large homeless population being unsheltered.

Lol, the explanation kinda has a lot to do with determining what you actually meant with your rebuttal.

I took it as defending the premise of the article itself, which was attempting to paint the entire protest as antisemitic in nature.

How else am I supposed to “more than one” other than supporting the article?

I didn’t accuse you of conflating antisemitism and pro Palestine until that particular rebuttal.

So I’m accusing someone of saying something they never said, but it’s apparently okay when you do it.

I mean you substantiated your position several times, unless I was supposed to interpret “More than one. This sounds more like you didn’t read the article.” as anything other than a tacit agreement with the articles sentiment.

If so, feel free to explain.

No where in the article did it state more than one person claimed that Hitler should have wiped out all the Jews…

And even if there were more than one person, that still doesn’t make everyone involved In the protest an antisemite.

Kinda hilarious that you are asking people to adopt a nuanced opinion that separates the actions of Jews from the actions of Israel, despite the state of Israel itself conflating the two. But, you aren’t able to do the same for antisemitic protestors and protestors trying to stop a genocide.

and OP criticized Adams for it.

Where? He just pointed out an internal contradiction within a particular statement. Criticizing how someone responds to something is not the same as criticizing that they responded to something.

That’s literally why you include quotations of the points of the argument you are addressing…

Yes, you can agree with certain aspects of an affirmation without agreeing with the entirety of the body of work, and vice versa.

Also, I don’t particularly trust the mayor of the NYPD to really portray reality free of any biases. It would surprise me if that was ever really said by a real protestor who was there to help the Palestinian cause.

And even if it was, it’s kinda dumb to label the whole protest as antisemitic because of the opinions of one person.

I mean that’s a straw man argument, op didn’t state any opinion on Hitler their affirmation.

I think another thing to keep in mind is that neoliberal news will amplify any behaviour they see that can be interpreted as antisemitism. We already have several examples of things like this being attributed to protestors when in reality it was a counter protestor or agent provokeruer.

I don’t think any person who actually cares about preventing a genocide is a supporter of the most well know orchestrator of genocide.

Well…that and the thinly repressed racism that’s been simmering in Europe for decades has finally boiled over.

Everyone in the US just kinda assumes that we’re an outlier in the racism department, but that’s just because they haven’t ever heard a drunk French man pop off about Algerian or Romani people.

Yeah… He’s definitely been a lot less sane in the last couple decades. In the past he’s been pretty vocal about combating neoliberalism, but lately he’s actions and associations have been pretty center right. I think it’s mainly because he hasn’t really kept up with modern geopolitics, and is prone to adopting the boomer mentality that any amount of socialism/communism is always bad.

If we’re talking about philosophical criticisms, his main body of work is derived from an overly analytical breakdown of linguistical syntax. Which is important to a point, but it garnished a cult like following in political and law students for a long time.

These students didn’t utilize this information as a way to breakdown things like manufactured consent in an understandable way, or to further better linguistic comprehension for the general public. Instead they just added it as another tool to their arsenal of dissembly. A common criticism of Chomsky is that he is one of the reasons modern politics is so reliant on semantic reasoning and logical fallacies.

Imo in debate/philosophy he’s kinda like the guy who invented the machine gun. His original work was supposed to be used to halt the abuse of weaponized language, instead it just became a manual on how to do it better…and at some point I think he just rolled with it for the prestige and money.

There is no such thing as international waters. China’s exclusive economic zone is one of 17

I mean this is just definitionally wrong. You can’t acknowledge the existence of exclusive economic zones without also recognizing international and territorial waters.

“The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a “sovereign right” which refers to the coastal state’s rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters are international waters.[2”

The Dutch and Australians have violated this and are now complaining.

No, the Chinese government is trying to both have their cake and eat it. They are acknowledging the idea of internationally recognized law, but ignoring the aspects they do not want to adhere to.

By definition economic exclusion zones only apply to the resources beneath the surface, the surface itself is international waters. The water people are allowed to protect as if it were sovereign land is only territorial waters, which extend 200 miles from the recognized Continental shelf.

No, it’s somewhat irrelevant. I’m not saying it’s okay to bomb those people

You’ve already blamed them and called them all terrorists…

What do you expect exactly? That I would say “oh so Israel lost much less people in the October 7 attack than Palestinians in XX years, so it should just do nothing”?

No, I would hope that you would apply the history of the region to gain greater context over the Oct 7th attack, it didn’t occur in a vacuum.

History doesn’t matter when it’s about specific decisions with predictable consequences, and the fact that those could be avoided in the first place.

Again, these people are in a giant concentration camp. It would be like blaming the Warsaw uprising for the destruction of the polish Jews.

How difficult it is to release hostages and surrender? I think just one attempt would suffice. Is it difficult because some of them refuse to agree that this is the simplest and fastest way to try to save Palestinians and show everyone they can work on their mistakes?

Because Israel has already stated they won’t negotiate for the hostage release, they don’t want the hostages. They want a genocide. Have you not been reading the news about this subject like at all?

primary complain is their stupidity. They are people. They can learn. Maybe they will stop being terrorists if they do that, I can’t know. But they surely aren’t helping their fellow Palestinians as is.

You are a fucking idiot. Hamas only had around 10-15k active members in their military, a significant number of those were killed on Oct 7th or in the following counter attacks.

The reason why the Israeli military has overwhelmingly killed primarily women and children is because Hamas is already destroyed. There are a few cells left in hiding, but the organization has no control over the Palestinian population.

You’re nothing but a psuedo intellectual bigot tripping over clumsy arguments to support war criminals. Go kick rocks.

Look up the meaning.

I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is… Attacking someone’s argument is not attacking them as a person. Who was I attacking?

Your logical fallacy is not my fault.

Lol, I think you need to relearn your logical fallacies.

I don’t. The one who “instinctually” believes it means something other than men hanging out are the people who think it sounds gay.

Again, unsubstantiated. And you haven’t explained how it would be homophobic.

First, that’s you inferring it from me not saying something, not me implying it.

Insisting a pro lgbtq website is being homophobic because one sentence taken out of context…

clarified the question, which you ignored

Because you didn’t add any clarity, you just questioned what the point of context was.

Personal bias and logic are too different things. My points are either wrong or they are right.

Personal biases affect how you developed an argument in the first place.

Whether they come from someone who is biased or unbiased does not change whether they are wrong or right.

Yes, and in this point of the argument you still haven’t sufficiently explained how a gay person labeling something as gay is homophobic. You know the entire point of the argument.

Your biases are leading you to draw conclusions from information taken out of context.

Ad hominem

Lol, who exactly am I attacking? I’m just stating it’s odd that you think you know more about homophobia than a queer author.

Argumentum ad populum.

Only because you haven’t stated your interpretation, what else is there to judge? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Straight men hanging out with each other is labelled as “pretty gay.” This is irrational because straight men can hang out with each other without being gay.

You’re purposely conflating what the author wrote, and misquoting them. Not exactly academically honest.

The quote was that “All Male Monday” sounds pretty gay. Which it does. That’s not homophobic, in fact it would be pretty rad if the context was at an lgbtq bar, and not a gathering of bigots.

Why do you instinctually believe All Male Monday has an inherent negative connotation?

Never said not suggested this. I think they’re idiots. Just like the author of this piece and the tweet, and the editors for allowing it. Multiple times youve falsely out words in my mouth

You have, by ignoring the purpose of the article and just interpreting statements taken out of context. You have also stated it’s gay people’s fault for driving men away from affection from other men.

“An all-male Monday sounds pretty gay to me.”

Yes, if someone advertised for a bar with “All Male Mondays”, It would be easy to assume it’s a gay bar. That by no means implies males hanging out makes you gay. Nor does it imply that being gay is bad, which would be homophobic.

What does context have to do with this? , when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

What does context have to do with any arguments…? Every argument requires context so you can’t just misinterpret a piece of a body of work.

You tried to attack me, by calling me homophobic

No, your argument implies you are homophobic. Being called gay is not homophobic unless the person calling you gay is doing so as an insult. You are implying that being gay is inherently insulting.

In the context of the article, the writer would have to believe their own sexuality is inherently insulting.

when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

Well at least we agree that you are homophobic, just apparently not at what level?

And yes, personal biases are important to determining the logical framework of an argument.